Mukund Oraon v. Central Coalfields Limited having its registered office at

Judgment

1. Central Coalfields Limited having its registered office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, PO Ranchi University, PS-Kotwali, District- Ranchi, its Chairman-cum-Managing Director. through

2. Director Personnel, Central Coalfields Limited having its registered office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, PO Ranchi University, PS-Kotwali, District- Ranchi.

3. General Manager (P & IR), Central Coalfields Limited having its registered office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, PO Ranchi University, PS-Kotwali, District- Ranchi.

4. General Manager, Kujju Area of CCL, PO & PS-Kujju, District-

6. Ramgarh. Staff officer ( P & A), Kujju, Area of CCL., PO & PS-Kujju, District-Ramgarh. Project Officer, Ara Colliery, CCL., PO & PS-Kujju, District- Ramgarh.

7. Welfare Officer, Ara Colliery, CCL., PO & PS-Kujju, District- … … Respondent(s) Ramgarh. ------

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nisith Kr. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Swati Shalini, Advocate 10/ 01st December,2025 ------

1. The petitioner by filing this writ petition, has challenged the order dated 06.01.2021 by which his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. I have perused the entire petition and counter-affidavit.

3. The father of this petitioner was an employee of Central Coalfields Limited. He died in harness on 03.06.2000. Admittedly, the name of this petitioner was in the service records of his father as dependent. At that time, he was of 15 years. The petitioner prayed to keep his name in the live roster and thereafter give compassionate appointment as per the provisions of National Coal 1 Wages Agreement (NCWA).

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied well within time but the respondents are disputing the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the note-sheet, there is some mention that this petitioner had applied to keep his name in the live roster which would suggests that the claim of the company that he has applied beyond the fixed time- frame is not correct. The respondents tried to create a suspicion over the said document.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the brother of the petitioner was already an employee of Central Coalfields Limited.

7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment. The issue as to whether the petitioner has applied within time or beyond time looses relevance because of the nature of the ultimate prayer which the petitioner has made. The ultimate prayer of the petitioner is to grant him compassionate appointment.

8. The compassionate appointment is granted to eradicate the immediate financial crisis which the family faces due to sudden death of the bread winner. In this case, the death of the employee happened in the year 2000, whereas, we are in now 2025. For long 25 years, the entire family has survived.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Canara Bank Vs. AjithKumar G.K.”, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 290 at paragraph No.11 of its judgment carved out the settled principles for grant of compassionate appointment which is here under:- “11. Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment on compassionate ground are legion and it would be apt for us to consider certain well-settled principles, which have crystallized through precedents into a rule of law. They are (not in sequential but contextual order): a) Appointment on compassionate ground, which is offered on humanitarian grounds, is an exception to the rule of equality in the matter of public employment [see General Manager, State Bank of India v. Anju Jain14]. (2008) 8 SCC 475 b) Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the 2 Jal the sudden [see Uttaranchal instructions [see Haryana State absence of rules or Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi15]. (2002) 10 SCC 246 c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in two contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general rule, viz. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on account of death or of medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service [see V. Sivamurthy v. Union of India16]. (2008) 13 SCC 730 d) The whole object of granting compassionate employment by an employer being intended to enable the family members of a deceased or an incapacitated employee to tide financial crisis, appointments on compassionate ground should be made immediately to redeem the family in distress [see Sushma Gosain v. Union of India17]. (1989) 4 SCC 468 e) Since rules relating to compassionate appointment permit a side-door entry, the same have to be given strict interpretation Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi18]. (2009) 11 SCC 453 f) Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirants [see SAIL v. Madhusudan Das19]. (2008) 15 SCC 560 g) None can claim compassionate appointment by way of [see State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar inheritance Sengar20]. (2009) 13 SCC 600 h) Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve [see Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India21]. (2011) 4 SCC 209 i) None can claim compassionate appointment, on the occurrence of death/medical concerned employee (the sole bread earner of the family), as if it were a vested right, and any appointment without considering the financial condition of the family of the legally deceased India v. Amrita Sinha22]. (2021) 20 SCC 695 j) An application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption could be drawn that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over [see Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar23]. (2009) 13 SCC 112 k) The object of compassionate employment is not to give a member of a family of the deceased employee a post much incapacitation of impermissible [see Union 3 less a post for post held by the deceased. Offering compassionate employment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and making compassionate appointments in posts above Class III and IV is legally impermissible [see Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana24]. (1994) 4 SCC 138 l) Indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is the first precondition to bring the case under the scheme of compassionate appointment. If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution is taken away from compassionate appointment, it would turn out to be a reservation in favour of the dependents of the employee who died while in service which would directly be in conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see Union of India v. B. Kishore25]. (1994) 4 SCC 138 m) The idea of compassionate appointment is not to provide for endless compassion [see I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi26]. (1994) 4 SCC 138 n) Satisfaction that the family members have been facing that an appointment on financial distress and compassionate ground may assist them to tide over such distress is not enough; the dependent must fulfil the eligibility criteria for such appointment [see State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari27]. (2012) 9 SCC 545 o) There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the applicant becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions [see Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar28]. (2000) 7 SCC 192 p) Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as substitute for providing employment assistance. Also, it is only in rare cases and that too if provided by the scheme for compassionate appointment and not otherwise, that a dependent who was a minor on the date of death/incapacitation, can be considered for [see Canara appointment upon attaining majority Bank (supra)]. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 q) An appointment on compassionate ground made many years after the death/incapacitation of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to the dependent of the deceased/incapacitated employee would conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh29]. (2007) 2 SCC 481 r) Dependents if gainfully employed cannot be considered [see Haryana Commission v. Harinder Service Singh30]. (2007) 2 SCC 481 s) The retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee are to be taken into consideration to determine if directly Public 4 the family of the deceased is left in penury. The court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of “not very well-to-do”. [see General Manager (D and PB) v. Kunti Tiwary31]. (2004) 7 SCC 271 t) Financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand defeated inasmuch as in such an eventuality, any and every dependent of an employee dying-in-harness would claim employment as if public employment is heritable [see Union of India v. Shashank Goswami32, (2012) 11 SCC 307 Union Bank of India v. M. T. Latheesh33, (2006) 7 SCC 350National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank Chand34 (2004) 12 SCC 487and Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja35]. (2004) 7 SCC 265 u) The terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income including the family pension and income of family from other sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly taken into consideration by the authority to decide whether the family is living in penury. [see Somvir Singh (supra)]. v) The benefits received by widow of deceased employee under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment cannot stand in her way for compassionate appointment. Family Benefit Scheme cannot be equated with benefits of [see Balbir Kaur v. SAIL36] compassionate appointment. (2004) 7 SCC 265 w) The fixation of an income slab is, in fact, a measure which dilutes the element of arbitrariness. While, undoubtedly, the facts of each individual case have to be borne in mind in taking a decision, the fixation of an income slab subserves the purpose of bringing objectivity and uniformity in the process of decision making. [see State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar37]. (2019) 3 SCC 653 x) Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar38]. (1994) 2 SCC 718 y) Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors the statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to appointment dehors such regulations/instructions [see SBI v. Jaspal Kaur39]. (2007) 9 SCC 571 z) An employer cannot be compelled to make an appointment on compassionate ground contrary to its policy [see Kendriya Sangathan v. Dharmendra Vidyalaya Sharma40]. (2007) 8 SCC 148 It would be of some relevance to mention here that all the decisions referred to above are by coordinate benches of two Judges. Corporation Insurance [see Life

10. Since family has survived for these 25 long years, I am 5 not inclined to exercise my extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

11. Thus, I am not entertaining this writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 1st December, 2025 Sandeep, cp2 Uploaded on 02/12/2025 6