The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.6409 of 2025 ----- Saroj Kumar Singh, S/o Late Janeshwar Singh, R/o Misir Gonda, Pokhra Kocha, Kanke Road, P.O.- Ranchi University, P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand .... Petitioner(s). 2025:JHHC:34725 Versus 1.The Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, Ranchi 2.The General Manager, Human Resources and Development, Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd, Administration Wing, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, Ranchi 3.The Manager, Human Resources and Development, Administration Wing, Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, Ranchi 4.The Personnel Officer, Personnel and Administration Division, Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd., Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, Ranchi … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM :
Legal Reasoning
scheme. It is well settled that for granting compassionate appointment, the provision of the scheme cannot be violated. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Baroda v. Baljit Singh, reported in (2023) 13 SCC 343 has held that the case of compassionate appointment has to be considered in accordance with the prevalent scheme. Paragraph 13 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder:- 13. In Balbir Kaur v. SAIL [Balbir Kaur v. SAIL, (2000) 6 SCC 493 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 767] it was observed that the family benefit scheme assuring monthly payment to the family of deceased employee on the facts therein was not a substitute for compassionate appointment by the Steel Authority of India—respondent in the said case. The said case proceeds on its own facts. The said judgment can be distinguished from the facts of the instant case as the 1998 Scheme specifically disentitles a candidate for compassionate appointment benefit on the application of the formula for calculation of monthly income if the same is less than 60% of the total emoluments which the deceased was drawing at the time of his death. The object is that it is only when a deceased employee’s family is in penury and without any source of livelihood when the employee died in harness, compassionate appointment can be considered. Since appointment on compassionate basis is an exception to the general rule for appointment by an open invitation, the exception has to be resorted to only when the candidate and his family is in penury so as to provide immediate succour on the death of the employee in harness. The same has been observed in SBI v. Kunti Tiwary [SBI v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 943] . In N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka [N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617 : (2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 861] a three-Judge Bench of this Court reiterated that appointment on compassionate basis is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules and Schemes applicable must be satisfied by all aspirants. Therefore, the case for compassionate appointment has to be considered in accordance with the prevalent scheme. Similarly, in State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar [State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 542] , this Court has observed that compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule, the dependents of the deceased government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy of compassionate appointment and they must fulfil the terms of the policy which are framed by the States/employers. 7. Thus, in absence of any proof that the petitioner has applied within a year and also considering the fact that there is a serious disputed question of fact, which cannot be entertained by this Court, in this writ petition, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, the same is hereby dismissed. 19th November, 2025 R.S./ (ANANDA SEN, J.)
Arguments
SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) For the Resp-CMPDI : Mr. Manoj Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate Mr. Kumar Nishant, Advocate 02 / 19.11.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties. …...... 2. Petitioner has challenged the Letter No.CMPDI/HQ/SE/E- 1884201/E-1726455 dated 21.05.2025 by which the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected, on the ground that the application was filed beyond the time frame prescribed in the scheme of the company. 3. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner was an employee of Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited (CMPDIL), a subsidiary of Coal India Limited. He died on 08.05.2018. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied on 18.12.2018 i.e. within one year, but show-cause notice was issued to him on 04.09.2023 to explain as to why there is delay of five years in filing the application for compassionate appointment. It is the case of the petitioner that he had replied by giving a suitable reply stating that he has filed the application within one year, but the same was not considered and vide impugned order dated 21.05.2025, the respondents rejected his claim. 5. After hearing the parties and after going through the impugned order, I find that in the impugned order, the respondents have mentioned about the time frame. As per the scheme of compassionate appointment the dependant has to file application within one year and the petitioner has filed his application much beyond the aforesaid period. When I put pointed question to the petitioner about the proof in support of his statement that the petitioner has filed this application on 18.12.2018 i.e. within one year from the death of employee, he submits that there is no proof to the same. 6. The fact which emerges is that the petitioner is claiming that he has filed his application within a year from the death of his father, whereas respondents is controverting the same and submit that the same has been filed after five years. This is a disputed question of fact and cannot be decided in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially in view of the facts that the petitioner has got no documentary proof save and except oral statement that he has filed this application on 18.12.2018. 7. From the impugned order, I find that there is time frame fixed for filing an application for compassionate appointment, as per the