[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Satyanarayan Pradhan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 January, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2026:JHHC:896
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2062 of 2022
-----
Satyanarayan Pradhan, son of late Damodar Pradhan, resident of village-
Konatoli, P.O Telgaon, P.S. Gumla, District- Gumla, Jharkhand.
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Home Prisons Disaster Management Department Ranchi,
at project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Government of Jharkhand (Department of Home,
Jail and Disaster Management Ranchi), having office at Project Building,
Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Gumla.
6. The Deputy Collector-cum-Chairman District Compassionate Committee,
Gumla. ... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the petitioner(s): Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate.
For the CCL Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to SC-IV, Advocate.
------
11/14.01.2026: Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner claims for grant of compassionate appointment on
the ground that his father died in Naxal violence.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Circular of the State
Government provides for grant of compassionate appointment to the
dependent of the deceased who died in naxal violence, thus the petitioner is
entitled for the same.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that
the father of this petitioner died in 2008 when admittedly the petitioner was
six years old. Due to lapse of considerable period of time, the petitioner was
not entitled for compassionate appointment. He further submits that the
mother of this petitioner has received the monetary compensation, which
was prevalent at that point of time.
5. Admittedly the father of this petitioner was not in government
service. The claim of the petitioner derives from some circular, which
provides for grant of compassionate appointment to the son of the deceased
person, who dies in naxal violence. Admittedly, the father of this petitioner
died in naxal violence.
6. This is also a case of compassionate appointment. Though, no
time frame has been fixed in the circulars, but the basic concept of
compassionate appointment needs to be followed in these types of cases
also.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the cases of
compassionate appointment, in the case of State of Best Bengal Vs.
Debabrata Tiwari and Ors. reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712 has held that the
delay defeats the claim of compassionate appointment.
In a very recent decision delivered in the case of the Director of Town
Panchyat and Ors. Vs. M. Jayabal and Anr. reported in (2025) SCC
OnLine SC 2794 and Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering
the judgment delivered in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal and Ors. Vs.
State of Haryana and several other cases, has held that the compassionate
appointment is not a right. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that
when a family has survived for a considerable period, there is no necessity to
grant compassionate appointment.
8. In this case, admittedly, the father of this petitioner died in the
year 2008 and the deceased family has survived more than seventeen years.
Further at the time of death of the deceased, the petitioner was only six
years old, therefore, he was not eligible to be appointed.
9. Thus, considering what has been observed above, no relief can
be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
10. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.
14th January, 2026 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
Anu/-Cp2.
Uploaded on: 16.1.2026
