[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Kanchan Devi on 2 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:9340-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.605 of 2025
---
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Project
Bhawan, Ranchi
2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project
Bhawan, Ranchi
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Ranchi
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Government Press, Doranda, Ranchi
5. The Secretary, Department of Planning & Development, Project
Bhawan, Ranchi ... ... Appellants
Versus
Kanchan Devi, W/o Late Ravindra Kumar, R/o House No. 3, Press
Colony, near Rani Kothi, Doranda H.O., P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-
Ranchi .... ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate
Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocate
-----
Reserved on 24.03.2026 Pronounced on 02.04.2026
Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. :
I.A No. 12929 of 2025:
1. The present interlocutory application has been filed for
condonation of delay of 85 days occurred in filing the present
appeal.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and on being
satisfied with the reasons set out in the present interlocutory
application, the said delay occurred in filing the present appeal is
hereby condoned.
3. The present interlocutory application is, accordingly, disposed of.
L.P.A No. 605 of 2025:
4. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order
dated 07.01.2025 passed in W.P. (S) No.3782 of 2024 by the
2026:JHHC:9340-DB
learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby and whereunder the
said writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent was disposed
of directing the Principle Secretary, Department of Finance,
Government of Jharkhand (appellant no. 3) to take an appropriate
decision on the claim of the writ petitioner for her compassionate
appointment by taking into consideration her actual date of birth
as 01.03.1983 as well as considering the judgment of this Court
passed in W.P.(C) No. 3115 of 2015 which validated the certificates
and degrees issued by the Deoghar Hindi Vidyapeeth prior to
26.02.2015 and that the certificate of the petitioner was prior to
the said date.
Fact of the case:
5. The writ petitioner/respondent is the wife of Late Ravindra Kumar
who died in harness on 08.12.2011 while working at Jharkhand
Government Press in the capacity of "Pratilipidhar".
6. Thereafter, the writ petitioner applied for appointment on
compassionate grounds on 06.07.2012, however her claim was
rejected by the Central Compassionate Committee vide its minutes
of meeting dated 08.12.2012 held under the chairmanship of the
Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand (appellant no.
2) on the ground that she was non-matriculate.
7. After passing of "Praveshika" examination (equivalent to
Matriculation) in the year 2012 from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar,
the writ petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate
ground vide application dated 20.05.2013 along with the required
2026:JHHC:9340-DB
provisional certificate dated 15.03.2013 regarding passing the said
examination. However, again the petitioner was not given
appointment on the ground that her date of birth recorded in the
provisional certificate was 01.03.1987, whereas on earlier occasion
she had submitted the Admit Card issued by the Bihar School
Examination Board, Patna in the year 1996 wherein her date of
birth was recorded as 01.03.1983.
8. The writ petitioner again passed Praveshika examination from
Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar in the year 2013 and applied for
appointment on compassionate ground vide application dated
06.05.2014 along with the passing certificate dated 21.03.2014
wherein her date of birth was recorded as 01.03.1983, however
the same was again rejected.
9. Subsequently, the date of birth of the writ petitioner mentioned in
her Provisional Certificate issued with respect to the "Praveshika"
examination, 2012 got verified and corrected by Hindi Vidyapeeth,
Deoghar and the writ petitioner vide letter dated 28.01.2020
requested the Under Secretary, Jharkhand Government Press,
Doranda, Ranchi to give her compassionate appointment, however
Under Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance Department, Government
of Jharkhand rejected her claim vide letter no. 63 dated
15.06.2020 stating that she was not eligible for appointment on
compassionate ground as the degrees/certificates issued by the
Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar were derecognized w.e.f. 26.06.2014
and no appointment could be made based on any
degree/certificate issued by the Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar, even if
2026:JHHC:9340-DB
it was obtained prior to 26.06.2014.
Argument on behalf of the appellants:
10. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that Clause- 1 of
the departmental circular dated 01.12.2015 clearly stipulates that
the purpose of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to
mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on
account of his unexpected death and to alleviate the distress of
the family. In the present case, since the writ petitioner herself is a
family pensioner, no such hardship has been caused to the family
of the deceased employee on account of his death.
11. It is also submitted that the husband of the writ petitioner had
died on 08.12.2011 and a period of more than 13 years had
passed on the date of passing the impugned judgment dated
07.01.2025. Thus, the very basic element for grant of
compassionate appointment to provide immediate financial
assistance to the family of a deceased government servant, has
been lost in this case.
12. According to learned counsel for the appellants it is well settled
principle of law that the compassionate appointment is not a
source of appointment but an exception to it and the purpose and
object of the scheme is to provide immediate help to the family of
the deceased employee on account of death of the bread earner of
the family.
13. It is further contended that the order rejecting the petitioner's
claim for compassionate appointment was rightly passed in the
year 2020 in terms of the rule applicable at that point of time,
2026:JHHC:9340-DB
however after the subsequent decision dated 10.05.2022 passed in
W.P. (C) No. 3115 of 2015, the provisions pertaining to recognition
of the degrees/certificates issued by the Hindi Vidyapeeth,
Deoghar were amended by the State Government vide letter dated
15.06.2023 but by that time her claim was not pending for
consideration as the same was already rejected by the authorities.
14. It is also submitted that the learned Single Juge failed to
appreciate that the writ petition filed by the petitioner suffered
from delay and latches as the order of rejection dated 15.06.2020
was challenged by the petitioner after a gap of four years without
assigning any reason for such delay.
15. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner puts reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of
State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others
reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712.
16. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent submits
that the degree issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar up to
26.02.2015 is valid in view of the judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No. 3115 of 2015 and as such by
putting reliance to the said judgment, the learned Single Judge
has rightly directed the appellant no. 2 to consider the claim of the
writ petitioner for compassionate appointment.
17. It is further submitted that the delay in giving compassionate
appointment to the writ petitioner has occasioned due to the
latches on the part of the appellants for which the writ petitioner
cannot be made to suffer. Moreover, the plea of delay and latches
2026:JHHC:9340-DB
was never raised either at the time of rejection of her claim by the
Under Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance Department, Government
of Jharkhand vide letter no. 63 dated 15.06.2020 or before the
writ court. As such, the appellants should not be allowed to take a
new ground for rejection of the petitioner's claim.
18. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials placed on record.
19. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is
that the family of the writ petitioner survived for more than 14
years after the death of the employee and as such the object of
compassionate appointment has now got frustrated. It is further
contended that the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate
appointment ought to have been rejected by the learned Single
Judge of this court on the ground of delay and latches.
20. On bare perusal of the order dated 15.06.2020 passed by the
Under Secretary, Planning-cum-Finance Department (Press),
Government of Jharkhand it is evident that the reason for rejection
of the writ petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was
that the degrees/certificates issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar
were treated to be not valid even though the same were issued
prior to 26.06.2014.
21. The learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order dated
07.01.2025 has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this
court passed in the case of W.P.(C) No. 3115 of 2015. We have
perused the said judgment, the relevant paragraphs of which read
as under: -
2026:JHHC:9340-DB
"21. This Court, therefore, is of the
considered view that the order/judgment as has
been passed by the Full Bench of Patna High Court,
is required to be followed on the ground of
similarity of facts and more particularly the entire
facts rest upon Govt. Order which was issued by
the erstwhile State of Bihar of the time when State
was unified i.e. vide order dated 11.01.1991.
Further, the State of Jharkhand also adopted the
said decision dated 11.01.1991 by issuing order on
03.11.2003.
22. In view thereof, this Court held that the
degree of 'Praveshika' 'Sahitya Bhushan' and
'Sahitya Alankar has got equivalence to
Matriculation, Intermediate and Graduation, as
decided vide order dated 11.01.1991 by the
General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar, which was adopted by the State of
Jharkhand vide order dated 03.11.2003, and as
such, the validity of order dated 11.01.1991 will be
effective up-to 26.02.2015.
23. The degrees issued by Hindi Vidyapith,
Deoghar, are held to be valid up-to 26.02.2015.
It is clarified that no benefit is to be given
on the basis of degrees issued by the institution in
question, Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar, after
26.02.2015."
22. Thereafter the Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand issued letter no.
3475 dated 15.06.2023 stating that the degrees/certificates issued
by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar up to 26.02.2015 would be valid for
appointment and promotion. Thus, the reason assigned in the
order dated 15.06.2020 for rejection of the writ petitioner's claim
was not liable to be sustained and the learned Single Judge has
rightly directed the appellant no. 2 to consider the writ petitioner's
claim for compassionate appointment.
23. The learned counsel for the appellants has given much emphasis
2026:JHHC:9340-DB
to the argument that the writ petitioner's claim for compassionate
appointment is not worth consideration on the ground of delay and
latches.
24. The said ground was never taken earlier either at the time of
rejection of the writ petitioner's claim or before the writ court and
for the first time the same has been raised before this court.
25. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Another Vs. Chief
Election Commissioner and New Delhi & Others reported in
(1978) 1 SCC 405 the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under: -
"8. The second equally relevant matter is
that when a statutory functionary makes an order
based on certain grounds, its validity must be
judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be
supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of
affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in
the beginning may, by the time it comes to court
on account of a challenge, get validated by
additional grounds later brought out. We may here
draw attention to the observations of Bose, J.
in [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas
Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088]:
"Public orders, publicly made, in
exercise of a statutory authority cannot be
construed in the light of explanations
subsequently given by the officer making the
order of what he meant, or of what was in
his mind, or what he intended to do. Public
orders made by public authorities are meant
to have public effect and are intended to
affect the actings and conduct of those to
whom they are addressed and must be
construed objectively with reference to the
2026:JHHC:9340-DB
language used in the order itself."
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as
they grow older."
26. Thus, the reason for passing an order cannot be supplemented by
filing any subsequent affidavit, rather the validity of the order must
be judged by the reasons so mentioned in the order itself. An
order which is bad in the beginning, cannot be validated by any
additional ground brought out later.
27. We are of the view that since the claim of the compassionate
appointment of the writ petitioner was rejected by an order as
contained in letter no. 63 dated 15.06.2020 by taking a ground
that the degree issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar could not be
treated as recognized even if the same was issued prior to
26.06.2014, the appellants cannot be allowed to raise a complete
new ground to justify their action.
28. We have perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) as has been
relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. In the said
case, their Lordships have held that the object underlying a
provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the
family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial
crisis due to death of the breadwinner which has left the family in
penury and without any means of livelihood. It has further been
held that out of pure humanitarian consideration and having
regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is
provided, the family would not be in a position to manage its basic
needs, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of
2026:JHHC:9340-DB
the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such
appointment. Thus, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate
appointment to the dependents of the deceased
employee after the crisis which arose on account of death of a
breadwinner, has been overcome. Where a long lapse of time has
occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the
sense of immediacy seeking compassionate appointment would
cease to exist and thus lose its significance. This would be a
relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in
determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate
appointment has been made out for consideration.
29. The facts and circumstance of the present case is quite different
from the case cited by the appellants and as such the same is not
applicable in the present case.
30. On bare perusal of the record it is evident that the first application
for appointment on compassionate ground was submitted by the
writ petitioner on 06.07.2012 i.e within one year from the date of
death of her husband and thereafter she repeatedly made
representations/applications for grant of the same, however her
request was turned down by the appellants, initially on the ground
that she was non-matric and thereafter on the ground of dispute
with respect to her date of birth recorded in the provisional
certificate of "Praveshika" examination issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth,
Deoghar. The date of birth of the writ petitioner was subsequently
rectified in her provisional certificate. Thus, the writ petitioner had
not committed any delay in raising claim of compassionate
2026:JHHC:9340-DB
appointment.
31. So far as the dispute with respect to the date of birth of the writ
petitioner is concerned, she herself is accepting that her actual
date of birth is 01.03.1983 and in the provisional certificate issued
by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar it was wrongly recorded as
01.03.1987 which was subsequently corrected. Thus, the learned
Single Judge rightly directed the appellant no. 2 to consider the
claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment by
taking into consideration her actual date of birth as 01.03.1983.
32. For the reasons as aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the
order dated 07.01.2025 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3782 of 2024.
33. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
34. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
02.04.2026
Vikas/A.F.R.
Uploaded on 02.04.2026
