2025:JHHC:14776 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.3574 of 2019 ----- Dhirendra Kashyap, S/o Late Ram Kumar Kashyap, R/o Garhwat, P.O.- Garhwat, P.S.- Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur, (Chattisgarh). ….…… Petitioner Versus 1. Central Coalfields Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The General Manager Kujju, Central Coalfields Limited, having its office at Kuju, Ranchi, P.Ο.-Kuju, P.S.-Kuju, District - Ramgarh, Jharkhand. 4. The General Manager, (MP & IR), Headquarter, Central Coalfields Limited having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The General Manager (P/NEE) Headquarter, Central Coalfields Limited having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. 6. The Project Officer, Karma Project Kujju Area, Central Coalfields Limited, having its office at Kuju, P.Ο.-Sarubera, P.S.-Mandu, District - Ramgarh, Jharkhand 6.Deputy Manager (P) Karma Project at Kujju, Central Coalfields Limited, P.Ο.-Sarubera, P.S.-Mandu, District - Ramgarh, Jharkhand ….…… Respondent(s) …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Uday Prakash, Advocate For the Resp-State : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate Reserved on: 03.04.2025 Pronounced On: 09/06/2025 By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 09.07.2016 Annexure-6(ii) passed by the Deputy Manager (P) Karma Project, Kujju Area Respondent No.7, whereby and whereunder petitioner’s case of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that his brother is in service. (ii) For prays for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider petitioner's claim of compassionate appointment and to provide him employment forthwith, 2025:JHHC:14776 2 2. Undisputed facts of this case are that petitioner’s father Late Ram Kumar Kashyap who was an Assistant Manager (Mining) in employment of respondent-CCL at Karma Project under Kujju Area died in harness on August 29th 2015. Following his death, his son, Dhirendra Kashyap (petitioner herein), submitted an application on 14.11.2015, seeking employment on compassionate grounds as per Clause 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA). It is the case of petitioner that he is the dependent son of the deceased employee and that being so upon death of his father, petitioner’s mother represented for his employment and petitioner accordingly submitted his claim in prescribed application form. It is his case that family members of the deceased employee also furnished their respective affidavits and no objection for petitioner’s employment. The petitioner also submitted an affidavit that upon getting employment, he will look after his mother. The petitioner’s brother Sri Ravindra Kumar Kashyap was in private employment at Bangalore, as such petitioner submitted a declaration to the said effect before a committee of the respondent CCL at Project Level. Finally, the petitioner’s case has been rejected by a letter dated 04.07.2016 merely on the ground that his brother namely, Ravindra Kumar Kashyap is in service. 3. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the provision for compassionate appointment under NCWA is a beneficial provision aimed at providing social security to the dependents of deceased employees. Given its beneficial nature, it requires a liberal and purposive interpretation to achieve its object. He further argues that the petitioner’s application should not have been rejected due to minor discrepancies. He further submitted that petitioner’s case of compassionate appointment has been rejected arbitrarily and in a mechanical manner in as much as petitioner’s brother is not in employment in CIL or its subsidiaries. He lastly argued that the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the provision for compassionate appointment is contained in Office memorandum dated 18th August, 2010, as per which, if a dependent is already in 2025:JHHC:14776 3 service then the claim for appointment on compassionate ground of another dependent cannot be considered. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in that view, as the brother of the petitioner, namely, Ravindra Kumar Kashyap admittedly is already in employment, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered as per the scheme of compassionate appointment. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 5. From the materials on record, I find that after the death of petitioner’s father on 27.08.2015, the petitioner’s mother represented for his son’s employment on 14.11.2015 and the petitioner accordingly submitted his claim in prescribed application form. However, his application was rejected on the ground that his brother was already in service. The respondents came up with a ground that as per office memorandum dated 18.08.2010, if a dependent is already in service, then, the claim for appointment on compassionate ground of other dependents cannot be considered. It is the contention of the petitioner that his brother is living separately and is in a private contractual service. 6. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment by an employer is to enable the family members of a deceased to tide over the sudden financial crisis. The appointment on compassionate ground is offered on humanitarian grounds. The same cannot be offered after a lapse of considerable time and after the crisis is over. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank vs. Ajithkumar G.K., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 has crystalized the settled principle relating to compassionate appointment and has held that compassionate appointment shall be given to meet the sudden crisis occurred in a family on account of death of the bread winner. The whole object of giving compassionate appointment is to enable the family members of the deceased to tie over the sudden financial crisis and the same cannot be given after the crisis is over. 8. In this case, I find that father of the petitioner died on 14.11.2015, now it is almost ten years from his death, thus in my view no compassion remains now for the family members of the deceased. 2025:JHHC:14776 4 They have already tied over the financial crisis and further one of the member of the family of the deceased is also employed, be it a private employment. The circular of the company though does not specify the nature of employment of a dependent, but the word “employment” cannot be restricted to employment in CCL, Coal India or any of the subsidiaries. In my opinion, if any of the dependent is in employment, be it in private sector or public sector, no appointment on compassionate ground can be offered to another dependent. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this case. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./