RANCHI, India, Dec. 31 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 1:

1. Heard the parties.

2. In this writ application the petitioner prays for the following relief:

"for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent nos. 2 and 4 to appoint the petitioner on the compassionate appointment as because the father namely Bilson Lakra was the Forest Guard who died in harness on 25.06.1998 whose murder was committed by unknown miscreants."

3. Admittedly the father of the petitioner died on 25.06.1998 in harness when the petitioner was aged only about 5 years and upon attaining age of majority she claims for compassionate appointment. The petitioner has filed a writ petition being WP(S) No. 5648 of 2023 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2024 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Her claim for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents vide letter no. 637 dated 18.06.2025 in view of Circular No. 4735 dated 19.05.1992.

4. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. v. Anusree K.B." reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1331 has held as under:

"18. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased."

5. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari" reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712 on the point of delay in paragraph 35 has held that-

"35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh [Haryana SEB v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 31] would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x2oPEWYc%2BBjDml6K4jLIdmJWTZCxKrxG1RYVGmIMc2y4&caseno=WPC/6750/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010306872025&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.