The High Court
Case Details
2025:JHHC:33250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6005 of 2025 ----- Haradhan Ray, aged about 45 years, Son of Lakhan Ray, Resident of Village-Saharjori, P.O. & P.S.-Barwadda, Dist.-Dhanbad ....Petitioner Versus 1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited represented through its Chairman cum Managing Director, office at Koyala Bhawan, P.O.- Koyala Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela Dist. Dhanbad. 2. The Director General (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, office at Koyala Bhawan, P.O- Koyala Nagar, PS. Saraidhela Dist.- Dhanbad. 3. The Assistant Manager (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Civil Engineering Department KNPA, office at Koyala Bhawan, P.O.- Koyala Nagar, P.S- Saraidhela, Dist.- Dhanbad. 4. The Senior Manager (Personnel) Establishment, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, office at Koyala Bhawan, P.O.- Koyala Nagar, PS. Saraidhela, Dist.- Dhanbad. 5. Officer-In-Charge, Koyla Nagar Town Administration, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, office at Koyala Bhawan, P.O.- Koyala Nagar, PS. Saraidhela, Dist.- Dhanbad. CORAM :
Legal Reasoning
SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate For the BCCL : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate … Respondent(s) 06/ 06.11.2025: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for …...... the following reliefs:- i. For quashing of order dated 08.08.2020 contained in Letter No. 3630 issued by Respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder claim of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment on account of death of his father Lakhan Ray, P in No. 01239976, JNTA Koyla Nagar in harness, has been rejected. ii. For direction upon the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner in accordance with 9.3.3 of NCWA in view of the fact that the father of the petitioner ex-maison died in harness. 2. The father of the petitioner namely, Lakhan Ray was a permanent employee under the respondents who died in harness on 31.08.2009. After his death, the petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment 1 2025:JHHC:33250 on 28.04.2010 under Clause 9.3.3 of the National Coal Wage Agreement, since his father left behind his wife and the petitioner. The petitioner was called for a medical examination, but was declared unfit because of defective vision and was directed to provide a handicapped certificate for being appointed in Physically Handicapped (P.H.) quota. He applied for handicapped certificate and the same was issued to him on 23.04.2018 which was submitted to the respondents but his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected vide rejection letter dated 08.08.2020. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, as they failed to grant him compassionate appointment under Clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA despite of obtaining handicapped certificate. He further submits that the rejection letter dated 08.08.2020 is unjust because the respondents’ own medical board had already declared him handicapped due to defective vision and had offered to consider him under the P.H. quota. He also submits that the petitioner obtained a handicapped certificate acting on direction of the respondents, therefore, denying appointment on the ground of a post-dated certificate is unreasonable. 4. The learned counsel for respondents submits that the Physically Handicapped certificate was issued too late, and by that time, the petitioner had already crossed 35 years of age, which is beyond the eligible age limit for compassionate appointment. He further submits that despite sufficient time and opportunity, the petitioner obtained and submitted the handicapped certificate on 23.04.2018, i.e, almost nine years after the death of his father and four years after being declared medically unfit. He also submits that on the date of submission of the P.H. certificate, the petitioner had already crossed the maximum age limit as prescribed for appointments, thus, he cannot be appointed. 2 2025:JHHC:33250 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that medical examination conducted earlier by the respondent company does not automatically entitle the petitioner for compassionate appointment under the disability quota. Compassionate appointments are meant to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the deceased employee and cannot be claimed as a matter of right after an inordinate delay. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K.” reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 has held that the purpose of compassionate to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family. It is necessary to quote paragraph 11 (c) of the said judgment- 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)… b)… c) Compassionate appointment 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. is ordinarily offered Hon’ble Supreme Court in “SAIL vs. Gouri Devi” reported in (2022) 17 SCC 531 in paragraph 10 has held that- 10. As held by this Court in Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Nirval Singh [Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 210] delay in pursuing claim/approaching court would militate against claim for compassionate appointment as very objective of providing immediate amelioration to family would stand extinguished. Before this Court, there was a delay of 07 years in approaching the Court and this Court observed and held that on the ground of delay itself, the heir/dependant of the deceased employee shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgments, I find that the very purpose of compassionate appointment stands defeated in this 3 2025:JHHC:33250 case due to the long lapse of time as the petitioner’s father died sometime in the year 2009 and now 16 years have already passed. The family has tied over the immediate crisis and sustained for long 16 years. Since the family has overcome the crisis, this is not a case for grant of compassionate appointment. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 06.11.2025 Tanuj, cp2 4