JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Shashank Shekhar Prasad, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Gyan Ranjan Nath Sahdeo, associate counsel to G.P. VI appearing for the respondent-state. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction upon the respondents to pay compensation and service to the petitioner on account of the fact that father of the petitioner was killed by naxals. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that facts of the case are as follows:- (a) On 14.05.1996, father of the petitioner while returning from forest was killed by naxals for which an F.I.R. was instituted on the very next day i.e. 15.05.1996 being Manika P.S. Case No. 13/96 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. Copy of the F.I.R. is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. (b) The petitioner submits that the petitioner was a minor at that point of time and the mother of the petitioner filed affidavit dated 06.11.2012 requesting the respondent authorities to grant benefit under the various schemes whereby the victims of the naxal families are granted compensation and employment. (c) The claim of the mother of the petitioner was processed by the Circle Officer, Manika who issued letter no. 394 dated 07.11.2012 asking the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station regarding involvement of the deceased father of the petitioner in any criminal case and in turn officer-in-charge of the police station vide letter dated 09.11.2012 confirmed that there is no criminal case pending against the deceased father of the petitioner. (d) Subsequently, Officer-in-charge Manika Police Station vide letter no. 406 dated 21.11.2012 forwarded the application of the mother of the petitioner for compensation and service and thereafter Deputy Commissioner, Latehar issued letter no. 631 dated 20.12.2012 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition addressed to the Home Department, State of Jharkhand seeking guidance in the matter and it was mentioned in the said letter that father of the petitioner was associated with extremist organization and he has been killed on account of their internal rivalry, as he had left the extremist organization for some time. (e) The counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly there is no criminal case pending against the deceased father of the petitioner and therefore as per the circular issued by the State Government, the petitioner is entitled for compensation as well as service. (f) Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5040 of 2014 and W.P. (S) No. 5228 of 2016 dated 28.04.2017. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said judgment, it has been held that even if criminal cases are pending against the deceased, then on account of his death, the proceedings is abated and therefore benefit under the scheme cannot be denied to such person on the basis of Clause-X of paragraph 9 of the circular which reads as under:- “(x) The perpetrators of violence or their family will not be entitled to any assistance under the scheme.” (g) Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment dated 22.03.2010 passed in W.P. (C) No. 3038 of 2007 wherein this Court has held that compensation and service cannot be denied on account of delay in approaching the authorities for claiming the compensation. 5. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under the scheme for grant of compensation firstly on account of the fact that incident had taken place as back as in the year 1996 and the petitioner has approached the authority for compensation and service for the first time only by affidavit dated 06.11.2012 and in the meantime, erstwhile State of Bihar has been bifurcated. As the petitioner would have been governed by the notification issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar and the incident relates to the erstwhile State of Bihar, therefore the State of Jharkhand cannot be directed to pay compensation and service to the petitioner. Secondly, counsel for the respondents submits that there is inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner to approach the authority in as much as the mother of the petitioner had approached the authority after about 17 years. Secondly, counsel for the respondents submits that there is inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner to approach the authority in as much as the mother of the petitioner had approached the authority after about 17 years. Thirdly, there are materials on record to show that father of the petitioner was the active member of the militant group, which is evident from the letter dated 530 dated 07.02.2013 issued by the Home Department, Government of Jharkhand as contained in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent no. 3 and 4, wherein the petitioner has been denied compensation and service on the ground that father of the petitioner was active member of the extremists organization. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the materials available on record, this court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner and the writ petition is dismissed on account of following facts and reasons:- (i) From perusal of the fardbayan in the first information report (FIR) annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition which was filed in connection with death of father of the petitioner by the brother of the petitioner, it is apparent that it has been mentioned that in the F.I.R. itself that father of the petitioner was a member of the extremist group and he was killed on account of internal rivalry within the extremist group. In such circumstances, as the family member of the deceased i.e. his son who is the informant of the criminal case has himself stated that father of the petitioner was a member of the extremist group and he was killed on account of internal rivalry within the extremist group, clause-10 of paragraph 9 of the circular issued by the State Government comes into play on account of such admitted fact which provides that the perpetrators of violence or their family will not be entitled to any assistance under the scheme. (ii) It is admitted fact on record that father of the petitioner was a member of the extremist organization. Even from perusal of the writ petition there is no statement made by the writ petitioner that his father was not a member of the extremist organization. Accordingly in letter no. (ii) It is admitted fact on record that father of the petitioner was a member of the extremist organization. Even from perusal of the writ petition there is no statement made by the writ petitioner that his father was not a member of the extremist organization. Accordingly in letter no. 631 dated 20.12.2012 as annexed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, it has been rightly mentioned that father of the petitioner was associated with extremists and he was killed on account of rivalry amongst them. (iii) Moreover, from perusal of the counter-affidavit there is clear averment that there are materials on record to show that father of the petitioner was a member of the extremist organization. From perusal of Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit at page no. 20 it is clear that the claim of the mother of the petitioner was rejected vide letter dated 07.02.2013 by holding that family member is not entitled to any benefit under the scheme and the order as contained in letter dated 07.02.2013 has not even been challenged by the writ petitioner. Therefore on account of no challenge to letter dated 07.02.2013 also the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in this writ petition. (iv) So far as contention of the writ petitioner that no criminal case was filed against the father of the petitioner and accordingly he cannot be termed as criminal, this contention is also fit to be rejected particularly in view of the fact that it is not necessary that against every extremist, one or more criminal case must be instituted for holding that the person is an extremist. In the F.I.R. itself, it is mentioned that father of the petitioner was a member of the extremist organization and by virtue of being a member of the extremist organization, he was certainly a perpetrator of crime. (v) So far as judgment which has been relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, in those cases, the criminal cases were lodged against the deceased persons and they were never found guilty and the criminal proceedings was abated, therefore the State was not permitted to take the help of the aforesaid clause to deny the compensation and service under the scheme. In the instant case, in spite of there being no criminal case instituted against the father of the petitioner, in view of the admitted fact that father of the petitioner was a member of the extremist organization, this court is of the considered view that aforesaid clause will fully apply to the case at hand and the petitioner will not be entitled to the benefit under the scheme on the ground that the deceased (father of the petitioner) was a perpetrator of violence. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed.