2026:JHHC:724 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7784 of 2025 ----- Roshan Tigga aged about 28 years, son of Late Jitendra Oraon, resident of Village- Telgaon Kona Toli, P.O-Telgaon, P.S - Gumla, Telgaon, Gumla, Jharkhand, 835207 ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Education & Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O and P.S- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Director, Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O and P.S-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, having its office at Collectorate Building, P.O and P.S- Gumla, District-Gumla, Jharkhand. 5. The District Education Officer, having its office at within the Collectorate Building, P.O and P.S- Gumla, District-Gumla, Jharkhand. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, having its office at within the Collectorate Building, P.O and P.S- Gumla, District- Gumla, Jharkhand. … Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Robin Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Akanksha Basundhra Raje, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shubham Gautam, AC to AAG-V …...... 02/ 06.01.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- i) For issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents, particularly the District Education Officer, Gumla, to appoint the petitioner, Roshan Tigga, on compassionate ground against a suitable Class-IV post in place of his deceased father, Late Jitendra Oraon, who died in harness on 01.09.2001. ii) For quashing and setting aside the impugned rejection order dated 11/08/2017 Memo No.1192 passed by the District Education Officer, Gumla, as being arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the directions of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 224 of 2016. iii) For issuance of a writ/order/direction commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with law and the applicable scheme/policy. 2026:JHHC:724 2 2. The petitioner is the son of late Shri Jitendra Oraon, who worked as a Grade-IV Peon under the District Education Officer, Gumla, and died while in service in 2001. At that time, the petitioner was only four years old. Since the death of the petitioner’s father, the family has been surviving only on widow pension, which the petitioner’s mother has been receiving since 2002. There is no other source of income for the family. In 2016, the petitioner’s mother approached the High Court seeking compassionate appointment by filing W.P.(S) No. 224 of 2016, for her minor son as at the time of his father’s death, the applicant was a minor. The Hon'ble Court, after hearing the matter, disposed of the petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the concerned authorities for consideration in accordance with law. Thereafter, the District Education Officer rejected the request on the ground that the applicant completed 18 years of age 14 years after his father’s death and there is delay in submission of the representation as the time limit for submitting an application for compassionate appointment is only 5 years from the date of death of the government employee. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment is arbitrary and unjust. He further submits that at the time of the petitioner’s father’s death, the petitioner was a minor, and therefore, the delay in seeking compassionate appointment was unavoidable and beyond his control. He further submits that the delay in submitting the representation occurred because the petitioner’s mother lives in a remote rural area and had no knowledge of the Court’s order within the stipulated time. He also submits that the petitioner fulfills all eligibility conditions, including educational qualification which is sufficient for appointment. 2026:JHHC:724 3 4. The learned counsel for respondents submits that the petitioner’s father expired on 01.09.2001, and the claim for compassionate appointment was not made within the prescribed time period. He further submits that the petitioner’s mother failed to submit the representation within the time which shows an inordinate delay of several years, which defeats the very purpose of compassionate appointment. He also submits that Compassionate appointment is not a right but an exception to the general rule of public employment, thus the scheme must be strictly followed. He further submits that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of time, especially when the immediate crisis arising out of the death of the employee has already been addressed through pensionary benefits. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I am of the view that compassionate appointments are meant to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the deceased employee who dies in harness. The same cannot be claimed as a matter of right after an inordinate delay. Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 has held that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family. It is necessary to quote relevant part of paragraph 11 of the said judgment- 11. Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment on compassionate ground are legion and it would be apt for us to consider certain well-settled principles, which have crystallized through precedents into a rule of law. They are (not in sequential but contextual order): a)… b)… c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in two contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general rule, viz. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on account of death or of medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. d) The whole object of granting compassionate employment by an employer being intended to enable the family members of a deceased or an 2026:JHHC:724 4 incapacitated employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis, appointments on compassionate ground should be made immediately to redeem the family in distress. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SAIL v. Gouri Devi reported in (2022) 17 SCC 531 at paragraph 10 has held as under- 10. As held by this Court in Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Nirval Singh [Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 210] delay in pursuing claim/approaching court would militate against claim for compassionate appointment as very objective of providing immediate amelioration to family would stand extinguished. Before this Court, there was a delay of 07 years in approaching the Court and this Court observed and held that on the ground of delay itself, the heir/dependant of the deceased employee shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgments, I find that 24 years has been lapsed since the death of the father of the petitioner and there is delay in filing application seeking compassionate appointment of the petitioner. In case of long delay in claiming Compassionate appointment or deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy gets diluted and the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased gets changed. The very purpose of compassionate appointment stands defeated due to the long lapse of time. As due to passage of long 24 years, the purpose of compassionate appointment now has been diluted as such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this case. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 06.01.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 14.01.2026