2025:JHHC:15143 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6564 of 2018 Budhni Devi, Wife of Late Ramgobind, aged about- 59 years, resident of- Gidi-C Colliery, P.O. & P.S.-Gidi, District-Hazaribagh. ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S Central Coalfields Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, a registered Company under the Companies Act, having its head office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi 2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, a registered Company under the Companies Act, having its head office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 3. The Director of Personal, M/S Central Coalfields Ltd, having its head office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 4. General Manager (Personal & Industrial Relation), M/S Central Coalfields Ltd, having its head office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 5. Manager (Personal), Gidi-C Colliery, Office of the Project Officer, Gidi- C Colliery, P.O. & P.S.- Gidi, District- Hazaribagh. 6. Project Officer, Gidi-C Colliery, Office of the Project Officer, Gidi-C Colliery, P.O. & P.S.- Gidi, District- Hazaribagh. … … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashank Shekhar Pd., Advocate For the Respondent-CCL : Mr. M. B. Lal, Advocate -------- 13/Dated: 10th June 2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the letter dated 15.07.2012 (Annexure-7), whereby the application for compassionate appointment of the daughter of the Petitioner has been rejected by the 5th Respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the husband of the Petitioner was working with the Respondents as Sweeper Category-II who died while in service on 14.11.2009. Thereafter, a family tree was prepared by the BDO on 17.01.2010; however, the representation of the Petitioner was filed on 27.01.2011 i.e. after a gap of one year. Pursuant 2025:JHHC:15143 2 thereto; the application for compassionate appointment was rejected and the same was informed to the Petitioner on 15.07.2012 (Annexure-7). Thereafter, the instant writ application has been filed on 20.12.2018. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the delay caused was natural and the application for compassionate appointment has been submitted within time. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed on the ground that the claimant for compassionate appointment was married daughter; however, at the time of application the daughter was not married and the delay caused by the respondents led to the new development that the daughter of the deceased employee got married. As such, learned counsel submits that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondents relying upon the counter affidavit submits that as per the Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA-IX the married daughter does not have any right to get compassionate appointment. He further submits that now in the year 2025, it cannot be said that there is need of appointment after such a long delay because admittedly compassionate appointment is given to the concerned person for immediate relief from the bereaved family. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the patties and after going through the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavit it is evident that the deceased employee who was working as Sweeper Category-II under the respondents died on 14.11.2009 and thereafter, the application for compassionate appointment was made on 27.01.2011 which was rejected vide order dated 15.07.2012 and the case has been filed after a delay of more than six years. The contention of the Petitioner that the delay caused by the Respondents changed the status of the daughter of the petitioner, from unmarried to married daughter, has no meaning in view of the fact that even the Petitioner preferred the instant writ application after a huge gap and as such as per the settled legal proposition; compassionate 2025:JHHC:15143 3 appointment is to be given for immediate relief due to the death of sole bread earner which is admittedly absent in this case. Therefore, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the writ application stands dismissed. 7. Pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amit