JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking direction upon the respondents to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. one lakh and to provide appointment to the petitioner whose father, namely, Suraj Prasad @ Suraj Sahu, was killed by the extremists (Naxalists) on 01.11.2010. 2. The brief facts of the case, as pleadings made in the writ petition, are that father of the petitioner, namely, Suraj Prasad Sahu @ Suraj Sahu was killed by naxalites/extremists on 01.11.2010 at village Sindari, Arki Police Station for which an F.I.R. being Arki P.S. Case No. 33 of 2010 was lodged. The petitioner, after killing of her father by the extremists, submitted representation before the respondents-authority to extend financial help and also to provide appointment on compassionate ground, annexing therewith notorized ‘no objection certificate’ of her two brothers, but it did not revoke any response. It has been submitted that her brother also submitted similar representations on her behalf to the respondent no. 2-Principal Secretary, Home, State of Jharkhand, in response thereto, the Under Secretary, Home Department made correspondences to the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti and the Superintendent of Police, Khunti requesting to provide all relevant papers of the deceased and character certificate of the deceased but they never took pain to send such documents and sat tight over the matter, hence the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the writ petitioner ought to have provided appointment on compassionate ground in view of circular dated 09.06.2011 but having not granted such benefit, the respondents-authorities have acted arbitrarily and unreasonably taking into consideration the fact that the father of the writ petitioner has died in extremists attack. Learned counsel for the petitioner, further putting reliance upon the circular of the Central Government, which has been taken note of by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 2584 of 2011 disposed of vide order 10th January, 2014, has submitted that the writ petitioner who happens to be the daughter of the deceased-employee, her case ought to have been considered for appointment on compassionate ground, as per condition stipulated under Clause 3(VI), but having not done so, the respondents-authorities acted unreasonably and contrary to the spirit of the scheme. 4. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed such prayer by taking the ground that circular dated 09.06.2011, upon which, the prayer is being sought for appointment on compassionate ground, cannot be held applicable in the facts of the instant case since the father of the writ petitioner has died on 01.11.2010, which is prior to issuance of circular dated 09.06.2011 issued by the State of Jharkhand, as the said circular circular cannot have its retrospective application. It has further been submitted that circular dated 09.06.2011 contains no provision to provide appointment in favour of married daughter, as would appear from the clause pertaining to dependency of the said circular. Further argument has been raised to the effect that death of the father of the writ petitioner has occurred in the year 2010 and since then about 12 years almost has lapsed, therefore, the very spirit of compassionate appointment is no more and in that view of the matter, since the appointment on compassionate ground is to be provided, which is in the teeth of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and as such the prayer for for providing appointment on compassionate ground is not worth to be considered. It has further been submitted that the amount of compensation has also been paid in favour of writ petitioner, which has been accepted by her, as such nothing remains to be adjudicated in this case. 5. In response to such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that question of retrospectivity will not come into play since the decision has not been taken on the representation filed on behalf of petitioner and during pendency of the said application circular dated 09.06.2011 has been issued and hence consideration ought to have been given on the basis of circular dated 09.06.2011. Further, so far as issue of marital status of the writ petitioner is concerned, submission has been made that the writ petitioner on the date of making application for compassionate appointment was unmarried, therefore, her status ought to have been considered taking into consideration the fact that on the date of submission of application, she was unmarried. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Since, learned counsel for the petitioner has put much reliance upon the circular dated 29.06.2021, which was issued by the functionary of the Union of India, and has been taken note of by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 2584 of 2011 disposed of vide order 10th January, 2014, therefore, this Court deems fit and proper first to deal with the applicability of circular dated 29.06.2012, wherein following stipulations have been made: “4. Eligibility (i).The financial assistance would be given to the family member(s) in the event of death or permanent incapacitation of the victim, in terrorist, communal or naxal violence. (ii). Assistance would be given to the surviving spouse in case of death/permanent incapacitation of the husband or the wife, as the case may be. However, if both the husband and the wife die in same incident of violence, the family would be entitled to get the assistance, in each case. (iii). Families of the victims would be eligible to get assistance under the scheme even if they have received any other assistance, by way of payment of ex-gratia or any other type of relief from the Government or any other source except when a similar scheme is already being implemented by the Central Government. (iv). Next of kin of employees of Central Government, CPSEs, Autonomous Institutions and other Government Organizations including State Governments/State PSEs and similar organizations of State Governments will also be eligible to receive financial assistance of Rs.3 lakhs in case of death/permanent incapacitation (50% and above) on account of incidents of Terrorist/communal/naxalite violence. (v). The total compensation amount, available in the SRE states/districts would be Rs.4 lakhs(Rs.1 lakh from SRE and Rs.3 lakhs from the Central Scheme). In the other areas, the assistance would be limited to Rs.3 lakhs. (vi). Foreign Nationals and NRIs shall also be eligible/covered under the scheme w.e.f 1.4.08 i.e. the date from which this scheme has been made effective. (vii). Those permanently incapacitated, and the members of the family of the victims killed/permanently incapacitated in the terrorist, communal or naxal violence would be given a health card by the District Health Society, functioning under the National Rural Health Mission. This card would entitle them to free medical treatment in respect of injuries due to violence and all other major illnesses. Those permanently incapacitated, and the members of the family of the victims killed/permanently incapacitated in the terrorist, communal or naxal violence would be given a health card by the District Health Society, functioning under the National Rural Health Mission. This card would entitle them to free medical treatment in respect of injuries due to violence and all other major illnesses. Medical care will also be provided to the beneficiaries of the scheme as a special case under the on-going schemes of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, viz. Rashtriya Arogya Nidhi and the National Trauma Care Project. (viii). Children in the family would continue to be entitled for assistance admissible under the project ‘Assist’, implemented by the National Foundation for Communal Harmony (NFCH) of the MHA. (ix). No other criteria regarding income of the family would be considered for the eligibility under this scheme. (x). The perpetrators of violence or their family will not be entitled to any assistance under the scheme. (xi). The eligible claimants can file their claims in prescribed proforma (Annexure-I) within 3 years of the relevant incident of terrorist, communal or naxal violence through the concerned DM/State Government. The time limit however can be relaxed in deserving cases by the Central Government on the recommendations of the State Govt. or by the Central Government suo motu. 5. Assistance i). An amount of Rs.3 lakh would be given for each death or permanent incapacitation to the affected family under the scheme. ii) The amount of Rs.3 lakh would be put in a fixed deposit account [Joint or Single in the name of the Family member(s)] in a Nationalized bank. (If there is no nationalized bank within the vicinity of the beneficiary, account may be opened in any scheduled commercial bank.) It would have a minimum lock-in period of 3 years or if there are only minor children in the family, till the eldest child attains the age of majority, whichever is later. iii) The interest on the above sum would be credited directly by the bank to the beneficiary’s saving account on a quarterly basis. iv) At the end of the lock-in-period, the principal amount of Rs.3 lakh would be transferred directly to the saving account of the beneficiary, if the beneficiary is the spouse of the victim. iii) The interest on the above sum would be credited directly by the bank to the beneficiary’s saving account on a quarterly basis. iv) At the end of the lock-in-period, the principal amount of Rs.3 lakh would be transferred directly to the saving account of the beneficiary, if the beneficiary is the spouse of the victim. v) In case of death or permanent incapacitation of the beneficiary, his or her Next of Kin would operate the account. vi) In case of permanent incapacitation, the victim himself/herself would be the beneficiary. However, if he/she is not in a position to operate the account, then his/her nominee would operate the account. 6. Procedure to be followed at the District level i) A District Level Committee, under the chairmanship of District Magistrate/Collector/Dy. Commissioner, and having as its members the District Superintendent of Police, District Medical Officer, District Social Welfare Officer, District Child and Women Development Officer and an officer who may be nominated by the State Government would identify beneficiaries and verify their eligibility for assistance under the scheme. ii) While examining eligibility claims, the District Committee would look into the Police Report/FIR, Death-cum-Postmortem Certificate in the event of death, and Medical Certificate in the event of permanent incapacitation, birth certificate of the Claimant (if minor), and any other documents as considered necessary for determining the legitimate claimant. iii) In case of permanent incapacitation, a certificate from the District Medical Officer would be required to show that the victim has suffered 50% and above disability, which is of permanent nature and there are no chances of variation in the degree of disability, and the injury renders the victim unfit for normal life for the rest of his life. iv) In choosing the beneficiary in the family, the NOK (Next of Kin) concept would be applied. v) The District Committee will satisfy itself that the victim has suffered/died due to terrorist, communal or naxal violence, as the case may be, and the beneficiary has been identified as per the scheme. It would also verify that the victim has not suffered/died due to any incident of crime or natural reason. vi) The District Committee would, so far as possible, make its recommendation in (Annexure-II) within 15 days of receipt of claim for assistance to victims/family of terrorist or communal violence. It would also verify that the victim has not suffered/died due to any incident of crime or natural reason. vi) The District Committee would, so far as possible, make its recommendation in (Annexure-II) within 15 days of receipt of claim for assistance to victims/family of terrorist or communal violence. vii) The District Collector may, on his own, recommend assistance under the scheme with suitable justification. viii) The processing of the application, as per the provisions of the scheme, shall be completed within 3 weeks, including the recommendations of the District Committee. ix) The sanction order will be issued by the DM/DC on behalf of the State Government. A copy of the sample sanction order which is presently being issued by the MHA is at annexure – III. A copy of the Sanction letter will be sent to the Home Department in the State. A copy of the sanction order will be endorsed to IS-II Division Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi. x) The DM/DC will issue the cheque in the name of the beneficiary. Whenever feasible the assistance shall be disbursed by way of electronic transfer to the victim?s/NOK bank account. xi) The State Government shall undertake to widely disseminate information about the scheme, and to undertake its publicity. 7. Procedure to be followed after the issue of cheque i) The District Collector/District Magistrate/Dy. Commissioner, as the case may be, would deposit the cheque in the FD account of the beneficiary, with instructions to the Bank that no premature withdrawal may be allowed. ii) Standing instructions would be given to the Bank to credit the quarterly interest during the lock-in-period and the principal amount after the lock-in-period, directly into the account of beneficiary. 8. Procedure to be followed by Ministry of Home Affairs i) After the DM/DC has made the payment to the NOK of the victims of terrorist/communal/naxal violence under the Scheme, the State Government may submit the proposal to MHA for reimbursement in the prescribed proforma (Annexure- IV) on half-yearly basis (by 31st December & 30th June of each year). ii) The reimbursement will be considered on the basis of audited accounts in this regard. However, to ensure that the State does not suffer because of delay in audit of accounts, ad hoc releases will be made on the basis of accounts furnished by the State Government and due scrutiny by IFD, MHA. ii) The reimbursement will be considered on the basis of audited accounts in this regard. However, to ensure that the State does not suffer because of delay in audit of accounts, ad hoc releases will be made on the basis of accounts furnished by the State Government and due scrutiny by IFD, MHA. These ad hoc payments will be adjusted after final audited accounts are made available. The Central Government will make 70% payment immediately and balance 30% after receipt of audit verification report by the Internal Audit Wing of MHA. iii) The States shall ensure that the amount claimed under the Central Scheme for Assistance to civilian Victims of Terrorist, Communal and Naxal violence is not claimed under any other scheme of the Government of India i.e. there shall not be duplication of the claim. The States shall give an undertaking/certificate that no reimbursement has been claimed for these items under any other scheme. iv) The revised guidelines will be applicable from the financial year 2012-13. v) The State Government/UTs shall incur all expenditure (which will be reimbursed by MHA), with respect to proposals in connection with incidents which occur from April, 2012 onwards. Proposals in respect of incidents which have taken place prior to April, 2012 and which have not so far been sent by the State Governments to MHA will also be considered by the concerned State Governments for approval and reimbursement by MHA. The proposals which have been sent to MHA but are pending for want of complete documents from the State Government will also be considered by State Government for approval and subsequent reimbursement from MHA. 9. Saving Clause In case of any clarification required/difficulty faced in implementation of the scheme, suitable orders/clarifications will be issued by the Internal Security – II Division of the MHA.” Thus, it is evident that circular dated 29.06.2012 since has been issued by the Central Government through its functionary, therefore, unless said circular will be adopted by the State of Jharkhand, there is no question of its applicability upon the State of Jharkhand. Therefore, reliance, as has been placed by petitioner on circular dated 29.06.2012 for getting appointment on compassionate ground, cannot be held justifiable and no benefit can be granted on the basis of said circular. Therefore, reliance, as has been placed by petitioner on circular dated 29.06.2012 for getting appointment on compassionate ground, cannot be held justifiable and no benefit can be granted on the basis of said circular. Further, it requires to refer herein that even circular dated 29.06.2012 contains no provision to provide appointment on compassionate ground and as such reliance which has been placed on behalf of petitioner on circular dated 29.06.2012 is having no application so far providing appointment on compassionate ground in absence of such provision is concerned. Therefore, argument, which has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is held to be based upon the misconception and as such the same is hereby rejected. 7. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the rival submissions advanced on behalf of parties, deems it fit and proper to answer following issues: (I).Whether the writ petitioner can be held entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of circular dated 09.06.2011, since on the date merely the father of the writ petitioner has died there was no circular to that effect? (II). Whether circular dated 09.06.2011 can be held applicable in the case of the writ petitioner merely because the State-respondent has not decided the application of the petitioner said to have been filed on 07.05.2011 on the basis of circular dated 09.06.2011, which contains no provision to consider the case of appointment on compassionate ground to be having marital status of ‘married’? 8. Since both the issues are inter-linked, therefore they are being taken up together to be answered. 9. There is no dispute about the settled legal position that any circular/executive instruction cannot have its retrospective application, however, the position of law is different with respect to applicability of the enactment/rules/regulations with retrospective effect. The same can be made retrospective application, if specifically provided under the Statute but the same principle is not applicable so far as circular/executive instruction is concerned. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in P. Mahendran & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Ors, [ (1990) 1 SCC 411 ], in particular paragraph 5, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “5. It is well settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. It is well settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If a rule is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective only. In the absence of any express provision or necessary intendment the rule cannot be given retrospective effect except in matter of procedure. The amending Rules of 1987 do not contain any express provision giving the amendment retrospective effect nor there is anything therein showing the necessary intendment for enforcing the rule with retrospective effect. Since the amending Rules were not retrospective, it could not adversely affect the right of those candidates who were qualified for selection and appointment on the date they applied for the post, moreover as the process of selection had already commenced when the amending Rules came into force, the amended Rules could not affect the existing rights of those candidates who were being considered for selection as they possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Rules before its amendment moreover construction of amending Rules should be made in a reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary hardship to those who have no control over the subject matter.” The Hon’ble Apex Court has also considered in the case of State Bank of India and Ors. vs. Jaspal Kaur reported in (2007) 9 SCC 571 dealing with the issue of applicability of the scheme, as to which scheme will be applicable, and answering the same, it has been held that the scheme prevailing on the date of death of the concerned employee will be applicable in consideration of the case for appointment on compassionate ground. 10. This Court, on the basis of aforesaid settled legal position and taking into consideration the circular dated 09.06.2011, which admittedly has come after the death of the father of the writ petitioner which occurred on 01.11.2010, is of the view that the circular dated 09.06.2011 will have no application in the facts of the case. 11. 10. This Court, on the basis of aforesaid settled legal position and taking into consideration the circular dated 09.06.2011, which admittedly has come after the death of the father of the writ petitioner which occurred on 01.11.2010, is of the view that the circular dated 09.06.2011 will have no application in the facts of the case. 11. So far consideration of the case of the writ petitioner, merely because application which was filed on 07.05.2011, prior to coming into effect of circular dated 09.06.2011, is concerned, according to considered view of this Court even on that ground no relief can be granted to the petitioner since petitioner is seeking direction by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground and since the date of death of the father of the writ petitioner twelve years has elapsed and as such the very object and intent for the purpose of which circular dated 09.06.2011 has been formulated, providing therein provision for consideration of case for appointment on compassionate ground of one or the other, is to meted out to extend the immediate relief to the dependent of the deceased family, but herein the father of the writ petitioner since has died on 01.11.2010 and since then almost 12 years has has elapsed and during that period the immediate succor which was to be made applicable to the dependent bereaved family has been meted out. Further, as has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that two elder brothers who since were on earning have no objection to provide appointment in favour of petitioner since according to petitioner herself sons of the deceased are already earning members, therefore, on that count also it is not case of penury that due to starvation there is chance of death and as such on that ground also, the consideration of the appointment on compassionate ground is not to be provided taking into consideration the fact that appointment on compassionate ground is to be provided if to be made available in the teeth of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as such various parameters have been set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushma Gosain and Ors. vs. Union of India reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468 held at paragraph 9 which read as under: “9. vs. Union of India reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468 held at paragraph 9 which read as under: “9. We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the breadearner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” It is evident from the judgment rendered in the case of Sushma Gosain & Ors. vs. Union of India (supra), that it speaks about the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to the death of breadearner in the family and therefore, there should not be delay in appointment, and must be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress by not getting the matter pending for years. Further, if there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. The aforesaid ratio clearly speaks that the appointment on compassionate ground is to be provided immediately. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh reported in (2014) 13 SCC 583 wherein it was observed that compassionate appointment cannot be granted as of right and the application to be decided as expeditiously as possible and held at paragraph 6, which reads as under: “6.Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its breadearner. Mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.” (emphasis supplied) The above consistent view, has been relied in various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 , State of Manipur v. Mohd. Rajaodin reported in (2003) 7 SCC 511 , Steel Authority of India Limited v. Madhusudan Das and Ors. reported in (2008) 15 SCC 560 and Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192 . In the judgment rendered in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 wherein at paragraphs 15, 17 and 20 it has been held as under: “15. Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee?s family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate appointment has been recognised as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve. 17. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve. 17. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, while emphasising that a compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of course or in posts above Classes III and IV, this Court had observed that: (SCC p. 140, para 2) ‘2. … The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post 12 much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” 20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee’s family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.” (emphasis supplied) 12. However, the argument has been advanced that principle as has been applicable with respect to providing appointment on compassionate ground in the case of death of public servant will not be applicable herein. However, the argument has been advanced that principle as has been applicable with respect to providing appointment on compassionate ground in the case of death of public servant will not be applicable herein. But this Court is not in agreement with such submission as has been advanced on behalf of petitioner for the reason that whether in case of death of public servant on any eventuality even in case of death due to extremist attack the death is death and due to the loss of the bread earner there might be an issue of financial crunch and that is the reason the circular dated 09.06.2011 has been formulated keeping the fact into consideration that in case of such death in order to mete out the situation of financial crunch, the appointment on compassionate ground be provided depending upon the eligibility, in that sense, the intent and object to provide appointment on compassionate ground is similar to that of the scheme which has been made to provide appointment on compassionate ground in case of death of public servant. 13. Further, as on date the petitioner is married and living with her husband and as such she is not coming under the category of dependent as per the scheme wherein there is no policy to appoint married daughter as such taking this fact into consideration also, it cannot be said that as of now appointment on compassionate ground is required to be provided giving complete go by to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 14. The argument, as has been advanced on behalf of petitioner, that consideration for appointment on compassionate ground, ought to have been considered on the basis of circular dated 09.06.2011 on the ground that application which was filed, was decided after coming into effect circular dated 09.06.2011, but this Court is not in agreement with the said legal position, on the basis of fact that the consideration is required to be given for appointment on compassionate ground when the cause of action accrue. Herein, the cause of action which is said to be death of father of the writ petitioner admittedly occurred on 01.11.2010 i.e., prior to coming into effect of circular dated 09.06.2010 and as such the said circular cannot be held applicable on ground of pendency of such application before the respondents. Herein, the cause of action which is said to be death of father of the writ petitioner admittedly occurred on 01.11.2010 i.e., prior to coming into effect of circular dated 09.06.2010 and as such the said circular cannot be held applicable on ground of pendency of such application before the respondents. Further, so far as argument about marital status of the petitioner is concerned, submission has been made that on the date of making application, her status was of unmarried daughter , but even accepting the said factual aspect to be correct, then also the writ petitioner cannot be allowed to get appointment on compassionate ground on the sole reason that on the date of death of her father there was no circular in-vogue to provide appointment on compassionate ground rather the benefit which is being sought to be taken, is based upon circular dated 09.06.2011 which admittedly will not be operative by not giving its retrospective application. Therefore, since on the date of death of the father of the writ petitioner, there was no circular in-vogue, having been issued by the State of Jharkhand to provide appointment on compassionate ground in a case where the death occurred due to extremists attack, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 15. This Court, in the entirety of facts and circumstances and as per the discussion made hereinabove, is of the view that it is not a fit to pass any positive direction in favour of petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.