Dismissed¶17

Poonam Kumari v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC12 Feb 2026WPC/830/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; death in harness; renewed/repeat writ petition for same relief; abuse of process of law; dismissal of writ; warning in lieu of costs; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; W.P.(S). No. 830 of 2012; Poonam Kumari v. State of Jharkhand; Deepak Roshan, J.; decided 12.02.2026; Latehar; Civil Court Class-IV employee; earlier writ W.P.(S). No. 4026 of 2008 by mother dismissed and affirmed by Division Bench.

What did the court decide?

None — the writ application was dismissed; no costs were imposed and only a warning against abuse of the process of law was issued. ¶17

Poonam Kumari Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the writ application was dismissed; no costs were imposed and only a warning against abuse of the process of law was issued.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-authorities should be directed to consider the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground following the death of her father (a deceased employee) in harness on 26.07.2008. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The writ application praying for a direction upon the respondent-authorities to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment is dismissed.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The dismissal of the earlier writ filed by the petitioner's mother for the same relief does not give the petitioner any right to approach again for the same relief of compassionate appointment; the instant writ petition is an abuse of the process of law. The Court also noted that almost 17 years have lapsed since the death of the deceased employee.

¶16

Key takeaways

Although the Court considered this a fit case to impose costs, it refrained from imposing any cost and issued only a warning to petitioners of this type not to abuse the process of law.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Deepak Roshan, J.) — W.P.(S). No. 830 of 2012, decided 12.02.2026: Poonam Kumari, daughter of a deceased employee who died in harness on 26.07.2008, sought a direction upon the respondent-authorities to consider her for appointment on compassionate ground, one brother (Madan Kumar) already serving as a Class-IV employee in the Civil Court, Latehar, and the other (Awnidhar Paswan) stated to be unfit owing to mental retardation. An earlier writ (W.P.(S). No. 4026 of 2008) by the petitioner's mother, Mandodari Kumari, for compassionate appointment of her daughter-in-law Rekha Devi had been dismissed by this Court and the dismissal affirmed by the Division Bench. Holding that the earlier dismissal gives the petitioner no right to renew the same prayer and that the fresh writ is an abuse of the process of law — with almost 17 years lapsed since the death — the Court dismissed the writ application, deemed it a fit case for costs but imposed none, issuing only a warning to such petitioners not to abuse the process of law.

¶1

2026:JHHC:3824

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S). No. 830 of 2012

¶4

¶5

Poonam Kumari, daughter of Late Shiv Shankar Ram, resident of village Bishnupur, P.O., P.S. and District Latehar.

¶6

…… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Law Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. District & Sessions Judge, Latehar. …… Respondents ---------

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶8

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shubham Mishra, AC to SC(M)-II ----------

¶9

12/ 12.02.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent-authorities to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground since her father died in harness on 26.07.2008 and out of two sons of deceased employee namely, Madan Kumar, was working as Class-IV employee in the Civil Court, Latehar and the younger son namely, Awnidhar Paswan is not fit for appointment since he is suffering from mental retardation.

¶11

3. From writ petition itself it appears that on earlier occasion, a writ petition being W.P.(S). No. 4026 of 2008 , was filed by the mother of the petitioner namely, Mandodari Kumari for compassionate appointment of her daughter-in-law namely, Rekha Devi, but the same was dismissed by this Court. Subsequently, against the order dated 13.12.2008, an appeal was also preferred which was also stood dismissed.

¶12

4. Thus, it is evident that for taking compassionate appointment, the petitioner is trying her level best. As per the averments made in the writ application itself, earlier an application was filed for compassionate appointment by one of the legal heirs of deceased employee, which was dismissed and the order of the Writ Court

¶13

¶14

2026:JHHC:3824

¶15

was affirmed by the Division Bench and again, the instant writ has been filed, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

¶16

5. Even otherwise, the death of the deceased employee occurred on 13.12.2008 and we are in the year 2026 i.e. almost 17 years have lapsed. As stated herein above, the dismissal of the writ filed by the mother of the petitioner for the same relief does not give any right to the petitioner to approach again for the same said relief for compassionate appointment.

¶17

6. Accordingly, the instant writ application is dismissed.

¶18

7. This is a fit case to impose cost but this Court is not imposing any cost but only a warning to any such type of petitioners not to abuse the process of law.

¶19

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶20

12^th February, 2026

¶21

Kunal/-

¶22

Uploaded on 11/03/2026

¶23

Poonam Kumari v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Kumari v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Radha Mohan Sharma Vs Education

Shashi Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Industries

Ms Rahul Distributors through Its Proprietor Sri Naresh Kumar Rastogi Vs State of Jharkhand

Kauleshwar Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Kumar Singh Vs District Magistrate Collectorate Office