ORDER : Ananda Sen, J. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.3.2013 by which his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the competent authority of the State. Since the deceased, namely, Bidya Binod Gope was not in employment on the date of death, i.e. 14.9.2000, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered. 2. Bidya Binod Gope was an employee under the State of Jharkhand. He was appointed on 11.3.1992 as Jeep Driver. The services of Bidya Binod Gope along with other persons were terminated, vide memo no.2331 dated 13.10.1995. Thereafter father of the petitioner, i.e. Bidya Binod Gope died on 14.2.2000. A writ application being W.P.(S) No.6199 of 2003 was filed by Dayalu Ram and others praying therein for quashing termination order dated 16.10.1995. This petitioner was also a party to that writ application. The said writ application was disposed of on 16.10.1995 with the following direction. " In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move before the Director, Social Welfare, Department of South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi and the petitioners are at liberty to show to the Director, Social Welfare, Department of South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi that similarly situated persons have been reinstated by one or other orders and thereafter the Director, Social Welfare, Department of South Chotanagpur Division, will consider the question whether the petitioners can be reinstated in service without back wages, if posts are vacant, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such representation. It is also made clear that if the authorities reject the claim of one or other petitioners, they will have to show the ground of rejection." 3. After the order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the authorities concerned considered the case and by order dated 29.12.2012 and 2.11.2013 reinstated four of the writ petitioners of W.P. (S) No.6199 of 2003. There is no whisper in that order about the decision taken in respect of the husband of the petitioner, i.e. Bidya Binod Gope. 4. The petitioner thereafter has applied for grant of compassionate appointment for her son which was rejected by the impugned order. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is absolutely bad. There is no whisper in that order about the decision taken in respect of the husband of the petitioner, i.e. Bidya Binod Gope. 4. The petitioner thereafter has applied for grant of compassionate appointment for her son which was rejected by the impugned order. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is absolutely bad. She submitted that Bidya Binod Gope should be deemed to be in service at the time of his death by virtue of the order of reinstatement passed in respect of other similarly situated persons. He further submits that since there is an order of reinstatement in respect of four persons, who have been dismissed along with her husband, it is to be treated that her husband is also deemed to have been reinstated, (though there is no such specific order) and prayer for compassionate appointment should have been considered and her son should have been appointed on compassionate ground. 6. Counsel for the State submits that admittedly on the date of death, husband of the petitioner was not in service. He further submits that there is no order of reinstatement in respect of the husband of the petitioner and as such, the impugned order is just and proper and needs no interference. 7. I find force in the submission advanced on behalf of the State. 8. Admittedly, husband of the petitioner was terminated on 13.10.1995 and he died on 14.9.2000. The Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(S) 6199 of 2003 directed the State to consider the case of the husband of the petitioner along with others on its merit. The case of four others were considered and they were reinstated but no decision was taken in respect of husband of the petitioner. As things stands today, admittedly, there is no order of reinstatement in respect of husband of the petitioner. The petitioner's argument that her husband be deemed to be reinstated as because there is an order of reinstatement of other persons, cannot be accepted. There had to be a specific order of reinstatement in respect of the husband of the petitioner, which is not there in this case. In my opinion, there cannot be deemed reinstatement of the husband of the petitioner. 9. There had to be a specific order of reinstatement in respect of the husband of the petitioner, which is not there in this case. In my opinion, there cannot be deemed reinstatement of the husband of the petitioner. 9. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision rendered in a case of V. Srinivasan @ V. Seeni v. The Commissioner, corporation of Chennai and another [W.P.No.21337 of 2015] dated 16.7.2015 but this judgment is also of no help. In that case, the order of dismissal was specifically set aside by the Labour Court and there was a direction of reinstating him, which is not the case in hand. 10. Since there is no order of reinstatement of the husband of the petitioner, it cannot be said that he died in harness. 11. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order needs no interference and hence, this application is dismissed. Application dismissed.