2025:JHHC:18925 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S) No. 2767 of 2025 --- Sunil Bhuiyan, aged about 38 years, Son of Late Kaila, Resident at Sirka, P.O. Argada, P.S. &District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand .........Petitioner Versus 1. Central Coal Fields Limited through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, At Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District: Ranchi. 2. Director (Personnel), Central Coal Fields Limited, At- Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District: Ranchi. 3. General Manager (P & IR), Central Coal Fields Limited, At- Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District: Ranchi. 4. General Manager, Barka Sayal Area, Central Coal Fields Limited, At Saunda-D, P.O. –Saunda-D, P.S.-Bhurkunda, District: Ramgarh 5. The Project officer, Saunda-D Colliery, Central Coal Fields Limited, At Saunda - D, P.O. - Saunda -D, P.S. - Bhurkunda, District: Ramgarh. 6. Assistant Manager (Personal), Saunda- D Colliery, Central Coal Fields Limited, At Saunda - D, P.O.-Saunda -D, P.S. - Bhurkunda, District: Ramgarh. ........Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deen Bandhu, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate -- 02/07.07.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner for quashing the letter dated 27/29.08.2024 (Annexure-9), whereby the 5th Respondent has rejected the claim of the Petitioner for appointment under Clause 9.3.2 of National Coal Wage Agreement (for show ‘NCWA’). 3. The Petitioner has moved before this Court earlier in W.P.(S) No. 592 of 2021. The said writ application was rejected and the impugned letter dated 03.06.2020 was sustained on the ground that the rejection of the claim of the Petitioner is based on Circular dated 09.06.1993, whereby the dependent of Casual Wagon Loader was not entitled for compassionate appointment. 2025:JHHC:18925 2 Thereafter, the petitioner herein assailed the order passed by the Writ Court in L.P.A. No. 593 of 2023 and the same was allowed vide order dated 07.02.2024 observing as under: “7. In view of the materials brought on record, this Court is of the opinion that the Central Coalfields Limited is required to consider the claim of the appellant in the light of the materials brought on record. Accordingly, the writ Court’s order dated 14th March 2023 is set aside. Consequently, the decision of the respondent- authority as contained in the communication dated 3rd June 2020 is quashed. This is however made clear that the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment shall now cannot be rejected on the ground that he has completed the age of 35 years. 8. The respondent-authority shall take a fresh look at the representation of the appellant for compassionate appointment within four weeks and pass a reasoned order thereon which shall be duly communicated to the appellant.” 4. Thereafter, a fresh order has been passed, which has been impugned in the instant application. 5. From bare perusal of the impugned order and the averments made in the instant writ application, certain admitted facts are required to be indicated hereinbelow: i) The deceased employee died on 17.09.2005. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, who also died on 12.12.2012; ii) The Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 11.04.2018; iii) The petitioner’s claim was rejected vide order dated 03.06.2020, which was assailed in the writ application and the same was dismissed. However, the Division Bench of this Court set-aside the order and Respondents were directed to reconsider the matter. However, a rider was indicated by the Division Bench, that in reconsideration, the case of the 2025:JHHC:18925 3 Petitioner should not be rejected on the ground of overage i.e. more than 35 years. 6. Thus, it is evident that the ground of latches which has been taken in the impugned order that the petitioner has filed the claim for compassionate appointment after much delay; has not been considered either by the Writ Court or by the Appellate Court. 7. In the instant case, practically the petitioner waited for about 7 years for preferring application for compassionate appointment after death of his mother and practically about 15 years from the death of his father. 8. The law is well settled that compassionate appointment is given for immediate relief to the bereaved family. Moreover, the compassionate appointment in the Respondent-Company is applicable under National Coal Wage Agreement, wherein the dependents have to file an application for compassionate appointment within the stipulated period. Initially, it was one year and subsequently there was change in the subsequent NCWA, but in any view of the matter as per applicable NCWA, the requirement was to file an application for compassionate appointment within 18 months and even taking as continuity of application of the mother of the petitioner; then also after the death of mother of the petitioner, the petitioner applied on 11.04.2018 i.e., after seven years. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk