A writ petition seeking directions to consider a representation for compassionate appointment becomes infructuous if the representation has already been rejected and the rejection order is not challenged.

Order on Board

1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to summon the entire record pertaining to the petitioner's case.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner no. 01 for family pension and death dues of Late employee Late Shri Heera Ram Uranw as per Law.

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ or directions to consider petitioner no. 02 application annexure P/6 dated 17/07/2017 for compassionate appointment in view of the case of the petitioners as well as the circular issued by the respondent authorities annexure P/9.

10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioners, in the interest of justice.

10.5 Cost of the petition.”

2. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the husband of petitioner No.1, Amrika Bai Uranw, and the father of petitioner No.2, Abhishek Kumar Uranw, namely, Late Heera Ram Uranw, was working as a Shiksha Karmi Grade-III at Primary School, Kauwabhata Choriya, Tehsil and District Janjgir-Champa. He died in harness on 03.06.2012. He would contend that petitioner No.2 moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 17.07.2017, but same has not been decided by respondent No.6/Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bamnidih, District Janjgir-Champa.

3. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Ms. Rai, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.6, would submit that the representation made by petitioner No.2 was rejected by respondent No.6 vide order dated 04.02.2026, and said order was placed on record along with the return filed on 12.02.2026. However, the said order has not been assailed by petitioner No.2.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

5. Having considered the fact that the representation made by petitioner No.2 has already been rejected by respondent No.6 vide order dated 04.02.2026, and said order has not been challenged, therefore, the relief sought in the present writ petition no longer survives. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to assail the order dated 04.02.2026 by filing a fresh writ petition, if so advised.