Dismissed¶¶25

Mukesh Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Mar 2026WPC/1603/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; writ petition dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction; cause of action arising wholly in West Bengal; petitioner's residence in Jharkhand does not create cause of action; material, essential or integral part of cause of action criterion; Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim (2007) 11 SCC 335; Supreme Court jurisdiction test; father died in harness 08.03.2014 as Sweeper-cum-Night Watchman, Block Livestock Development Office, Purulia, Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Government of West Bengal; WP(S) No.1603 of 2026; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Ananda Sen, J.; decided 11.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

This Court expressly rejected the petitioner's submission that his residence in the State of Jharkhand gives rise to the cause of action. ¶¶21

Mukesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court of Jharkhand possesses territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's writ petition seeking compassionate appointment, given that the cause of action arises wholly in the State of West Bengal. +1 more

¶¶17

Court's answer

The Court determined that the entire cause of action for claiming compassionate appointment arises in the State of West Bengal and not in the State of Jharkhand.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

This Court expressly rejected the petitioner's submission that his residence in the State of Jharkhand gives rise to the cause of action.

¶¶21

Key takeaways

Applying the criterion laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, (2007) 11 SCC 335, and considering the facts of this case, the Court concluded that it lacks territorial jurisdiction because the entire cause of action arises in West Bengal and none of the cause of action arose in Jharkhand.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition [WP(S)] No.1603 of 2026, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, decided 11.03.2026 before Ananda Sen, J. Mukesh Kumar Singh, aged about 29 years, son of Late Jogendra Singh @ Yogendra Singh, resident of Village Dama, District Giridih (Jharkhand), filed this writ petition seeking compassionate appointment. His late father had served as Sweeper-cum-Night Watchman attached to the Block Livestock Development Office, district Purulia, under the Directorate of Animal Husbandry as an employee of the Government of West Bengal, and died in harness on 08.03.2014; the petitioner accordingly claimed compassionate appointment from the State of West Bengal, filing in Jharkhand on the plea that his residence there gave rise to the cause of action. The Court held that the entire cause of action for claiming compassionate appointment arises in the State of West Bengal and none in Jharkhand, and relying on the Supreme Court's criterion in Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, (2007) 11 SCC 335 (a fact must form a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action for jurisdictional purposes), concluded that it lacks territorial jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed solely on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Respondents: the State of Jharkhand, the State of West Bengal, the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services (Kolkata) and the Block Livestock Development Officer, Para (Purulia).

¶1

2026:JHHC:6408

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

WP(S) No.1603 of 2026

¶4

¶5

Mukesh Kumar Singh, Aged about 29 Years, Son of Late Jogendra Singh @ Yogendra Singh, Resident of - Village Dama, Panchyat, Aoura, P.O.- Aoura, P.S. Bagodar, District-Giridih, State Jharkhand. … Petitioner(s).

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

The State of West Bengal.

¶9

The Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Prani Sampad Bhawan, LB-2, Sector-III, P.O & P.S Salt Lake City, Dist. Kolkata, State West Bengal.

¶10

The Block Livestock Development Officer., Para, P.O & P.S Para, Dist. Purulia, State West Bengal. … Respondent(s).

¶11

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhanu Pratap, AC to GA-IV

¶14

02 / 11.03.2026 : Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶15

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for compassionate appointment.

¶16

3. The facts are admitted in this case. The father of the petitioner was working as Sweeper-cum-Night Watchman and was attached with the office of Block Livestock Development Office at district Purulia in the State of West Bengal under the Directorate of Animal Husbandry. It is also admitted that the father of the petitioner was an employee under the Government of West Bengal and not under Government of Jharkhand. He died in harness on 08.03.2014.

¶17

4. Now the petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment from the State of West Bengal. The entire cause of action for claiming compassionate appointment arises in the State of West Bengal and not in the State of Jharkhand. This writ petition has been filed in the State of Jharkhand only taking a plea that now

¶18

¶19

2026:JHHC:6408

¶20

since the petitioner is residing in the State of Jharkhand, the cause of action will arise in the State of Jharkhand.

¶21

5. This Court is not in an agreement with the submission of the petitioner.

¶22

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim ” reported in (2007) 11 SCC 335 has held as under:

¶23

“37. From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in a catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the appellant-petitioner would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court, the court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless it must be a “part of cause of action”, nothing less than that.”

¶24

7. Considering the aforesaid judgment and the facts of this case since the entire cause of action for the core purpose of this writ petition arises in the State of West Bengal and none of the cause of action arose in the State of Jharkhand, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction.

¶25

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed only on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

¶26

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶27

11.03.2026 Tanuj/CP-2

¶28

Uploaded on 12.03.2026

¶29

Mukesh Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soyna Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Nishad @ Chhotu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Babuji Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

X Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lila Devi Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (in Short M/S Bccl) through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director