Jharkhand High Court
Varsha Tripathy vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:35308
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6478 of 2025
----
Varsha Tripathy, D/O Anup Tripathy, Resident of 132, Purana Basti, Ward
No. 02, VTC, Chakradharpur, P.O. & P.S. Chakradharpur, District- West
Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ... Petitioner
-versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha
Department, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. West Chaibasa, District-
West Singhbhum.
4. District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa,
District- West Singhbhum. ... Respondents
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kr. Vishwakarma, Advocate
: Ms. Anshu Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Deepika Jojowar, AC to SC-VI
----
02/ 19.11.2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:-
1. For grant of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing
the decision dated 14.12.2011 (Annexure-1) taken by District
Level Compassionate Committee led by respondent no.3
whereby and where under the application for appointment of
the petitioner on compassionate ground upon death of her
mother during her service has not been entertained.
2. For a direction to consider the appointment of the petitioner
on compassionate ground upon death of her mother during
service.
3. The case of the petitioner is that her mother died on 25.10.1993
while being posted as a Teacher. The petitioner made an application for
compassionate appointment on 06.03.2010 but the same was rejected by
the District Level Compassionate Committee on 14.12.2011. Later on, the
petitioner filed for review of the decision which was forwarded to the
respondent no.3 on 24.02.2018 but no action has been taken.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts forth his arguments stating
that the petitioner and the other children of the deceased employee were
2025:JHHC:35308
minor at the time of death of their mother and hence, could not apply for
appointment on compassionate ground. The learned counsel further
submits that in the meantime the sister in-law of the deceased made
application for appointment on compassionate ground but the same was
rejected by respondent no. 4.
5. Learned counsel representing the respondents state that the
petitioner's application was rejected being time-barred. The learned
counsel submits that the petitioner was not an adult at the time of death of
the employee. As per the government circular, the application should have
been made within five years from the date of death of the employee,
which has not been admittedly done in this case. The learned counsel
also argues that the primary purpose of compassionate appointment is to
alleviate the financial distress of the families of government servants who
die during their service and to provide them with financial assistance.
6. After hearing the counsel for the parties at length and after perusal
of the records, I find that the petitioner was not of age when she made the
application for appointment on compassionate ground and hence, her
application was rejected by the respondent authorities. Further, more than
30 years have passed since the death of the petitioner's mother, thus, no
compassion remains now. We must not forget that the sole object of
giving compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased
to tide over the sudden financial crisis.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fertilizers & Chemicals
Travancore Ltd. v. Anusree K.B., 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."
2025:JHHC:35308
7. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
facts of the case, also since now nearly 30 years have lapsed from the
date of death of the employee, I find no merit in this writ petition. This writ
petition, is accordingly, dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
19.11.2025
Tanuj
