2025:JHHC:25050 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 6389 of 2017 --------- Bhola, Son of – Late Aghnu Singh, Resident of – Subhash Nagar, Ranchi Dhoura, P.O. & P.S. Bermo, District- Bokaro. ......Petitioner Versus 1. Central Coalfields Limited represented through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Office at-Darbhanga House, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 2. The General Manager (Personnel & Industrial Relations), Central Coalfields Limited, Office at- Darbhanga House, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 3. The General Manager, Dhori Area, Dhori Colliery, Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. & P.S. Dhori, District- Bokaro. 4. The Senior Manager (Personnel), Amlo Project, Dhori Area, Dhori Colliery, Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. & P.S. Dhori, District- Bokaro. 5. Project Officer, Amlo Project, Dhori Area, Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. & P.S. Dhori, District- Bokaro. 6. The H.O.D. (MP & Rectt.), Central Coalfields Limited, Office at- Darbhanga House, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 7. Chief Manager (MP & R), Central Coalfields Limited, Office at- Darbhanga House, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate --------- 10/Dated:-18.08.2025 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the reasoned order being Order No. PD/MP/9.3.0/Dhori/2016/46B dated 29.01.2016 passed by HOD (MP & Rectt.), Central Coalfields Limited; whereby the representation filed by the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground pursuant to order dated 15.09.2015 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.1748 of 2014, has been rejected on the ground that as per final LTC Bill 2025:JHHC:25050 2 availed by his father, the petitioner was aged below 15 years on the date of death of his father and thus was not entitled for being kept on live roster in terms of NCWA which was applicable during that period. 3. The petitioner had earlier moved before this Court against the order dated 22.01.2014, in W.P. (S) No.1748 of 2014. This Court without making any comments on the merits of the case directed the respondent No.4 to take a decision in the matter. For brevity, order dated 15.09.2015 is quoted hereinbelow: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. The death of petitioner's father occurred on 1st August, 1998 in harness while working as Piece Rater Worker at Amlo Project in Respondent­CCL. The claim for compassionate appointment is still being pursued by the petitioner stating that it is under consideration as the petitioner has been asked through letter bearing no. 4077 dated 1st February, 2015 issued by Senior Manager (Pers.), Amlo Project to submit certain documents. Petitioner contended that earlier on account of the employment of his brother, the claim for compassionate appointment were not entertained as it was treated as a case of double employment under the same company. In 2008, there was a change in policy which permitted consideration of claim for compassionate appointment even in cases the surviving spouse of the deceased employee was in service. However, in case a sibling of the dependent is in employment under the company, such claim for compassionate appointment can be considered independently or not is another question to be taken into account by the respondents while considering the petitioner's case. Be that as it may, at this stage, without making any comments on the merit of the case, more so when no response has also come on record on behalf of respondents, it is deemed appropriate that the respondent no. 4, The Senior Manager (Personnel), Amlo Project, Dhori Area, Dhori Colliery, C.C.L., Bokaro author of letter dated 1st February, 2015 Annexure­9 to the supplementary affidavit/competent authority takes an informed decision within a reasonable time preferably within 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in the matter of petitioner's application for compassionate appointment, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 4. Pursuant to the said order passed by the Writ Court, a reasoned order has been passed wherein the respondents have 2025:JHHC:25050 3 taken a stand that the name of the petitioner does not appear in any official records of the deceased-father who was the ex- employee or in the official records of Manju Kamin, who is the widow of ex-employee and the only place where the name of the petitioner reflects is the LTC Bill which was availed from 23.02.1998 to 02.03.1998 in which the age of the petitioner has been recorded as 12 years and taking a clue from the LTC certificate, age of the petitioner has been considered as 12 years and 5 months at the time of death of his father; however, at that time the prescribed age of keeping the name of male dependent on live roster was 15 years to 18 years and that continued up to 31.12.1999 and since there was no birth certificate or any other document given by the petitioner to the respondents even after remand; coupled with the fact that in none of the service excerpts the name of the petitioner was there, save and except the LTC form, which indicated the age of the petitioner as 12 years and on that basis, it has been concluded by the respondents that the age of the petitioner was 12 years 5 months. This reasoned order has been challenged in the present writ application. 5. Even in the instant writ application, there is no document annexed by the petitioner in order to demonstrate that the petitioner was between 15 to 18 years of age, save and except, his submission that the petitioner’s father/deceased employee was illiterate and he has put his thumb impression, therefore, it should not be accepted. However, this argument of learned counsel for the petitioner does not have much substance in view of 2025:JHHC:25050 4 the fact that there is no reason as to why the respondent company will deliberately reduce his age in the LTC form. 6. As stated hereinabove, there is no document, whatsoever, which has been produced by the petitioner in order to demonstrate his age at the time of death of his father and also there is nothing on record like service excerpts or Form B Register or Form A, which is kept with CMPF in which the details of dependents is mentioned. 7. After going through the impugned order, it appears that the deceased-employee died on 01.08.1998 and after the death of the deceased-employee, his widow has applied for employment on compassionate ground under 9.3.0 of NCWA in favour of her son Shri Bhola on 14.01.2008. 8. The law is now well settled that the compassionate appointment is always given for immediate relief to the bereaved family. Moreover, the compassionate appointment under the respondents arises out of an agreement known as National Coal Wage Agreement and unless and until the case of any employee comes within the purview of the terms of the agreement, no case is made out. 9. It goes without saying that at that relevant period, the time for making application for compassionate appointment was 18 months and admittedly, in this case, the petitioner applied under 9.3.0 after a delay of 10 years. Even otherwise, we are in 2025 and the death occurred in the year 1998; as such, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. 2025:JHHC:25050 5 10. As a result, the instant writ application stands dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-