High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 01 JH CK 1861

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Raj vs Regional Manager, State Bank of India

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 19 January 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ananda Sen, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S) No.7846 Of 2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 309 words

Ananda Sen, J

1.

The  Vakalatnama  on  behalf  of  the  petitioner’s  counsel  - Mr. Kundan Kumar, is accepted.

2.

Heard  Mr.  Kundan  Kumar,  learned  counsel  representing the petitioner and Mr. Parth S.A. Swaroop Pati, learned counsel representing the respondent - State Bank of India (SBI).

3.

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays for grant of  compassionate  appointment  on  account  of  death  of  his  father  - Late Krishna Prasad Keshri, who died on 12.08.2025.

4.

After hearing the parties, I find that it is an admitted case that father of this petitioner died on 12.08.2025. Admittedly, he was not an employee of the State Bank of India. He was an employee of one Private Company namely “Laxmi Chand & Sons”, which provides Facility Management Services, like housekeeping, security, catering etc. As an employee of Laxmi Chand & Sons Company, the father of the  petitioner  was  posted  in  the  Branch  of  State  Bank  of  India.  As the services were discontinued, he was removed from service.

5.

Thereafter, father of the petitioner - Late Krishna Prasad Keshri,  preferred  a writ petition being  W.P.(S)  No.1387 of 2024  for regularization, which was dismissed for default. Against the said order of dismissal for default, a Civil Misc. Petition being C.M.P. No.625 of 2025 was filed to restore the aforesaid writ petition, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31.10.2025. The matter was set at rest with the said dismissal.

6.

As things stands today, admittedly the father of the petitioner  was  not  the  employee  of  the  State  Bank  of  India,  rather he  was  an  employee  of  the  Private  Company,  thus  this  petitioner cannot  claim  any  compassionate  appointment  from  the  State  Bank of India, which was not the employer of the father of this petitioner. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.