IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.2112 of 2022 ------

Tripti Subha Kujur, daughter of Sri Ishwar Dutt Kujur, resident of Pusppur, Simdega, P.O., P.S. & District Simdega, Jharkhand.

… … Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, at HEC, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

2. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, at HEC, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

4. The Director, Primary Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, at HEC, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Ranchi, P.O., P.S.

& District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

6. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman of the District Compassionate Committee, Simdega, P.O., P.S. and District Simdega, Jharkhand.

7. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Simdega, P.O., P.S.

& District Simdega, Jharkhand.

8. The District Education Officer, Simdega, P.O., P.S. & District Simdega, Jharkhand.

9. The District Superintendent of Education, Simdega, P.O., P.S.

& District Simdega, Jharkhand.

10. The District Welfare Officer, Simdega, P.O., P.S. & District Simdega, Jharkhand.

… … Respondents ------

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lalit Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Prakash Kumar Ambastha, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Karan Shah Deo, AC to SC-II ------

19/ 17.02.2026 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned decision of Minutes of Meeting dated 21.10.2016 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), whereby claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate ground had been rejected.

2.1. The petitioner further prays for considering her case for grant of compassionate appointment on account of death of her mother namely late Prabha Jayanti Tigga, who died in harness on 16.05.2012.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that only after death of mother of this petitioner, the respondents are questioning the very basis of appointment of her mother, which is absolutely bad. He submits that when mother of the petitioner died in harness, the petitioner became entitled for compassionate appointment.

4. Learned counsel representing the respondent – State opposes the aforesaid prayer and submits that the mother of the petitioner was appointed in the year 1981 but in the year 2010, it was noticed that several persons including the mother of the petitioner, were not appointed by following the procedure of Law and thus, it was concluded that the appointment was illegal, but before any action could be taken, mother of this petitioner expired on 16.05.2012. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

5. After hearing the parties, I find that it is admitted by the respondents that the mother of the petitioner was appointed in the year 1981 and was in service till her death i.e. 16.05.2012. Her entire stint was satisfactory, except issuance of a charge- sheet, that too rendered otiose, as no action pursuant to the said charge-sheet was taken.

6. Admittedly, all the death-cum-retiral benefits have been disbursed. Now, when this petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment, the respondents have taken a plea that the petitioner cannot be appointed on the ground that her mother was illegally appointed.

7. Once admittedly there is no order terminating the services of mother of the petitioner, it cannot be said that mother of the petitioner was illegally appointed. Further, she worked till her last breath and after her death, all the death-cum-retiral benefits have been disbursed. That being so, now after the death of mother of this petiti