JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking direction upon the respondents to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. one lakh and to provide appointment to the petitioner whose father, namely, Suraj Prasad @ Suraj Sahu, was killed by the extremists (Naxalists) on 01.11.2010.

2. The brief facts of the case, as pleadings made in the writ petition, are that father of the petitioner, namely, Suraj Prasad Sahu @ Suraj Sahu was killed by naxalites/extremists on 01.11.2010 at village Sindari, Arki Police Station for which an F.I.R. being Arki P.S. Case No. 33 of 2010 was lodged.

The petitioner, after killing of her father by the extremists, submitted representation before the respondents-authority to extend financial help and also to provide appointment on compassionate ground, annexing therewith notorized ‘no objection certificate’ of her two brothers, but it did not revoke any response.

It has been submitted that her brother also submitted similar representations on her behalf to the respondent no. 2-Principal Secretary, Home, State of Jharkhand, in response thereto, the Under Secretary, Home Department made correspondences to the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti and the Superintendent of Police, Khunti requesting to provide all relevant papers of the deceased and character certificate of the deceased but they never took pain to send such documents and sat tight over the matter, hence the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the writ petitioner ought to have provided appointment on compassionate ground in view of circular dated 09.06.2011 but having not granted such benefit, the respondents-authorities have acted arbitrarily and unreasonably taking into consideration the fact that the father of the writ petitioner has died in extremists attack.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, further putting reliance upon the circular of the Central Government, which has been taken note of by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 2584 of 2011 disposed of vide order 10th January, 2014, has submitted that the writ petitioner who happens to be the daughter of the deceased-employee, her case ought to have been considered for appointment on compassionate ground, as per condition stipulated under Clause 3(VI), but having not done so, the respondents-authorities acted unreasonably and contrary to the spirit of the scheme.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed such prayer by taking the ground that circular dated 09.06.2011, upon which, the prayer is being sought for appointment on compassionate ground, cannot be held applicable in the facts of the instant case since the father of the writ petitioner has died on 01.11.2010, which is prior to issuance of circular dated 09.06.2011 issued by the State of Jharkhand, as the said circular circular cannot have its retrospective application.

It has further been submitted that circular dated 09.06.2011 contains no provision to provide appointment in favour of married daughter, as would appear from the clause pertaining to dependency of the said circular.

Further argument has been raised to the effect that death of the father of the writ petitioner has occurred in the year 2010 and since then about 12 years almost has lapsed, therefore, the very spirit of compassionate appointment is no more and in that view of the matter, since the appointment on compassionate ground is to be provided, which is in the teeth of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and as such the prayer for for providing appointment on compassionate ground is not worth to be considered.

It has further been submitted that the amount of compensation has also been paid in favour of writ petitioner, which has been accepted by her, as such nothing remains to be adjudicated in this case.

5. In response to such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that question of re