Mintu Kumar Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3635 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Mintu Kumar Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 August, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                               2025:JHHC:24182


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          W.P.(S) No.4024 of 2025
                                    ------
    Mintu Kumar Sao, aged about 32 years, son of late Brihaspati Sao,
    Resident of Village- Nawada, P.O. - Chatro, P.S.- Deori, Dist. Giridih.
                                                  ... ... Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
    1. The State of Jharkhand.
    2. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, P.O. & P.S.
         Giridih, Dist.-Giridih.
    3. The Block Education Extension Officer, Deori, P.O. & P.S. Deori,
         Dist. Giridih.
                                                  ... ... Respondent(s)
                                    ------
                        CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the petitioner : Mr. Jay Prakash Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Karan Shah Deo, AC to SC-II

------

04/ 19th August,2025

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner prays for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that his father who was a Para Teacher died on 05.10.2013.

3. From the pleadings, I find that the father of the petitioner died on 05.10.2013 and as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner applied for the first time for grant of compassionate appointment on 23.11.2022 i.e., after nine years. Further, now more than eleven and half years are lapsed from the death of the father of this petitioner. The family has survived for this long eleven and half years.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors.", reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712, has held that delay defeats the claim of compassionate appointment and, in this case, there is a delay of eleven and half years. Further the family has survived this period and now it cannot be said that there is financial crises which was there at the time of the death of the petitioner's father. The crisis has now been overcome.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his case was recommended by the village level committee, thus he is entitled to be appointed. Their recommendation does not create

2025:JHHC:24182

any right in favour of the petitioner. The compassionate appointment has to be granted in terms of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Rules. In this case, the claim is defeated by lapse of long eleven and half years, thus no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this case.

6. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.) Sandeep, cp3