2025:JHHC:27661 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4272 of 2025 ---- Most Kanta Devi, W/o Late Sanjay Ram, R/o Village, Sirka M.P.I., P.O. Argada, P.S. Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand) … Petitioner -versus- 1. Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 2. The Director (Personnel), CCL, Darbhanga House, P.O. G.P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 3. The General Manager (P & I.R), CCL, Darbhanga House, P.O. G.P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 4. The General Manager, Argada Area, CCL at & P.O. Argada, P.S. & District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand. 5. The Project Officer, Sirka Colliery, CCL at & P.O. Sirka, P.S. & District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand. .… Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Das , for CCL ---- 05/ 26.08.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- a) For issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction(s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order passed by the respondent no. 5 vide his letter No. PO(SG)/Sirka/9.3.0/Court Matter/17/15 dated 04.04.2017 (Annexure-11 to this writ application) whereby and whereunder the respondent No. 5 i.e., the Project Officer, Sirka Colliery rejected the claim made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment in CCL without following the directions dated 10.08.2015 of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court passed in L.P.A No. 544 of 2014 in so much so as inspite of the specific finding that the case of the petitioner is covered by circular of CCL dated 21.01.2012, the respondent No. 5 over and above the directives of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court has held that the case of the petitioner does not come within the ambit of circular of CCL dated 21.01.2012. b) For issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground under the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was appointed as a coal cutter on 09.01.1992 in Sirka Colliery of Central Coalfields Limited. 2025:JHHC:27661 -: 2 :- Unfortunately, the petitioner’s husband died in harness on 02.06.1997, leaving behind his widow and two children- one son and one daughter. On 18.11.1998, the petitioner made an application for employment before the respondent on the strength of Clause 9.3.2./9/5.0(ii) of N.C.W.A. VI/VII but the same was rejected on 13.05.1999. However, the rejection order was never communicated to the petitioner, but only an oral intimation was given without even giving the reason for such rejection. The respondent CCL issued a circular dated 21.01.2012 to consider cases of the dependents of such employees who died on or after 12.12.1995 and their cases had been rejected on ground of delay. The petitioner then made a representation dated 30.05.2012 before the respondent authority as she claimed that her case was covered under the new circular, since, she had applied for compassionate appointment on 18.11.1998, after a period of 1.5 years from the death of her husband. The petitioner preferred writ application being W.P.(S) No. 1345 of 2014, when the representation was pending for a long time. The same was dismissed on 02.12.2014 due to delay and because the name of the petitioner was not in the service records of the deceased. The petitioner then preferred L.P.A. No. 544 of 2014, wherein the Court set aside the order of respondent- CCL and directed the respondent authority to consider the matter afresh on basis of the CCL circular dated 21.01.2012. The respondent did not consider the claim of the petitioner and she filed a contempt case being Cont. Case (Cvl.) No. 705 of 2015 which was disposed with direction upon CCL to complete the entire exercise with the time extended. The respondents yet again rejected the claim of the petitioner without following the direction of this Court passed in L.P.A. 544 of 2014. The petitioner then filed a restoration application which was further dismissed on 19.02.2024 with liberty to seek redressal of her grievance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts forth his arguments stating that the respondent authority has been acting as an appellate authority by rejecting the claim of the petitioner even after specific directions by the Court to consider the case of the petitioner on strength of circular dated 21.01.2014. The counsel further submits that the petitioner’s status of legally wedded wife of the deceased employee has been disputed in the rejection order, however, the same status was accepted while making payment of gratuity to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the authority rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment 2025:JHHC:27661 -: 3 :- on the basis that her name does not appear in the service records of the deceased employee and hence, no consideration can be made on basis of the circular dated 21.01.2014. Furthermore, the counsel argues that the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 15.03.1983 on the Adhaar card and Election ID Card discloses the fact that the petitioner was only 09 years and 10 months old on the date of her marriage, i.e. 27.01.1993. This fact raises disbelief on the petitioner to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusal of the records, I find that the circular dated 21.01.2014 provides for reconsideration of the cases of compassionate appointment wherein the employee died on or after 12.12.1995 and which were rejected on the ground of delay in making application for compassionate appointment. It is pertinent to mention here that the claim of the petitioner was never rejected on the ground of delay but on the ground that her name was not appearing in the service record of the deceased employee. Hence, the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of the circular dated 21.01.2012. 7. An important fact, which cannot be lost sight of is that there has been a lapse of more than 20 years, and allowing the claim for compassionate appointment now will be against the very object of the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 while discussing on the object behind compassionate appointment has observed that the clauses forming part of the policy/scheme for compassionate appointment have to be followed to the letter. The court held as under: “25. The first sub-issue is in relation to the lapse of time since the respondent's father passed away. It has been in excess of two decades. It does not require anyone to put on a magnifying glass here to assess the time that has been taken for the application of the respondent for compassionate appointment to be finally decided. The parties have reached the third tier in the second round. One of the foremost factors for appointment on compassionate ground is that the same should be offered at the earliest. Unless appointment is made soon after the need to mitigate hardship arises, tiding over the immediate financial crisis owing to (i) sudden premature and untimely death of the deceased employee or (ii) medical incapacitation resulting in the employee's unfitness to continue in service, - for which benevolence is shown by offering an appointment - may not exist and thereby the very object of such appointment could stand frustrated.” “33. ...As has been laid down in several decisions of this Court, noted above, the clauses forming part of the policy/scheme for compassionate appointment have to be followed to the letter...” 8. In this case now more than 20 years have passed since the death of the employee. The family has tied over the crisis. The purpose of compassionate appointment has now got frustrated. If appointment is given 2025:JHHC:27661 -: 4 :- now, it will amount to another source of recruitment, which is impermissible. 9. In view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case, no order can be passed to grant compassionate appointment now. I find no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition, is accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02