2025:JHHC:37915-DB -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 155 of 2025 1. Central Coal Fields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, At Darbhaga House, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi. 2. Director (Personnel), Central Coal Fields Limited, At-Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi. 3. General Manager, (P & IR), Central Coalfields Limited, At- Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi. 4. Chief Manager (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, At- Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi. 5. The General Manager, Central Coal Fields Limited, Kathara Area, At & P.O.- Kathara, P.S.-Kathara, Dist.-Bokaro, Jharkhand. 6. The Project Officer, Govindpur Project, Central Coal Fields Limited, At Govindpur, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro Thermal, Dist.-Bokaro, Jharkhand 7. The Senior Manager (Personnel), Govindpur Project, Central Coal Fields Limited, At-Govindpur, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro Thermal, Dist.-Bokaro, Jharkhand. … … … Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. Budhan Oraon, aged about 60 years, Son of Sri Manager Oraon, Resident of Vill-Khurda Khurd, P.O.-Semra, P.S.-Chainpur, Dist.- Palamau, Jharkhand. ...Writ Petitioner No. 1/Respondent No. 1 2. Jitendra Minj, aged about 35 years, Son of Sri Budhan Oraon, Resident of Vill Khurda Khurd, P.O.-Semra, P.S.-Chainpur, Dist.- Palamau, Jharkhand. ...Writ Petitioner No. 2/Respondent No. 2 3. Kulpatia Devi, aged about 55 years, Son of Sri Budhan Oraon, Resident of Vill Khurda Khurd, P.O.-Semra, P.S.-Chainpur, Dist.- Palamau, Jharkhand. ... Writ Petitioner No. 3/Respondent No. 3 --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants: Mr. Abhishek Choudhary, Advocate --------- 02/Dated: 17.12.2025 I.A. No. 1719 of 2025 1. For the reasons stated in the Interlocutory Application, which is duly supported by the affidavit filed by the officer of the appellants, we find sufficient cause to condone the delay of 50 days that has crept up in filing the Appeal. 2. Accordingly, the aforesaid delay is condoned. This Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. 2025:JHHC:37915-DB -2- L.P.A. No. 155 of 2025 3. The parties shall be referred to as they were before the learned writ Court. 4. We really wonder why the appellants have filed the instant appeal given the fact that the learned writ Court after finding the order denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner dated 17.12.2015 being capricious, non-speaking and cryptic, quashed and set aside the same and remanded the matter back to reconsider the case of petitioner No. 2 for compassionate appointment after holding the enquiry with regard to status of petitioner No. 2. The respondents were further directed to appoint an appropriate officer to hold an enquiry. They were also at liberty to get the matter examined through police, specialized agency, if so required, with a caveat that the petitioners would be provided ample opportunity of hearing to place all the relevant materials and facts. There is no observation much less findings recorded by the learned writ Court on the merits of the claim of petitioner No. 2 and therefore, the appellants cannot be termed to be party aggrieved. Even otherwise, the impugned order dated 17.12.2015 cannot under any such circumstances be sustained as rightly been observed by the learned writ Court that the same is capricious, non-speaking and cryptic, which is clearly evident from perusal of order dated 19.11.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No.1469 of 2021, which reads as under: “5. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that this Court cannot sit as Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities, but at the same time if it transpires that a decision has been arrived on the basis of irrelevant material and the relevant material has not been considered, the court is bound to interfere in the order. The entire process appears to have been taken without adhering to the cardinal principle of natural justice 2025:JHHC:37915-DB -3- 6. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order dated 17.12.2015 being capricious, non-speaking and cryptic is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. The matter is remitted back to reconsider the case of the petitioner No. 2 for compassionate appointment after holding the enquiry with regard to status of petitioner No. 2. Respondents are further directed to appoint an appropriate officer to hold an enquiry. Petitioners shall be provided ample opportunity of hearing to place all the relevant materials and facts. Respondents are also at liberty to get the matter examined through police specialized agency, if so required, process of consideration shall be completed within a period of four weeks. Let the appropriate order be passed thereafter. Needless to say, if the claim of the petitioner No. 2 is found to be genuine, consider the same in accordance with law. 8. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed.” 5. Once the appellants cannot be held to be party aggrieved, obviously the appeal at its instance is not maintainable and the same is accordingly, dismissed. However, before parting it is made clear that we have not at all delved into the merits of the case and therefore, it is open to the appellants to decide the case of petitioner No. 2 without being influenced by any observation made herein. 6. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 17.12.2025 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 19.12.2025