Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30991-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 561 of 2024 --------- Sangita Kumari, D/o Late Bahadur Ram Nayak and Late Malti Devi, R/o S.J. Hospital Colony, Rajrappa Project Qr. No. 16/290-A-Type, P.O. Rajrappa Project, P.S. Rajrappa, District- Ramgarh ... … Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.- GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 2. The Director (Personal) Central Coalfields Ltd. Darbhanga House Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 3. The General Manager (P&IR/MP), Central Coalfields Ltd. Darbhanga House Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 4. The General Manager Rajrappa Area Central Coalfields Ltd. P.O., P.S.- Rajrappa, District- Ramgarh 5. The Staff Officer (P&A) Rajrappa Area, P.O., P.S. Rajrappa, District Ramgarh. 6. The Deputy Chief Medical Officer Central Hospital, Ramgarh Central Coalfields Ltd. Naisarai P.O., P.S. & District Ramgarh. 7. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Health and Medical Education and Family Welfare, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi ... … Respondents/Respondents ……….. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ……….. For the Appellant : Mr. Harendra Kr. Mahato, Adv. Mrs. Ahalya Mahato, Adv. Ms. Jyotsna Mahato, Adv. For the Resp.-CCL : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Adv. For the Resp.-State : Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG-II ……….. Order No. 10/Dated, 8th October, 2025 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Harendra Kr. Mahato, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL as well as Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned AC to AAG-II for the State. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30991-DB ) -2- 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4208 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the writ application preferred by the writ-petitioner/appellant against the letter dated 08.03.2022 issued by the respondent no. 5 declaring the writ- petitioner medically unfit for appointment has been dismissed. 3. The factual aspects of the case reveal that the mother of the writ-petitioner namely, Malti Devi was an employee of respondent-CCL designated as Cat-I under Rajrappa Area and she died during her service tenure on 16.05.2020. The writ- petitioner on account of the death of her mother had submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 03.06.2020. The said application was considered by the authorities and a conditional appointment letter dated 14.10.2020 was issued which contained several conditions amongst which included the necessity of being found fit on a medical examination conducted by a Medical Officer of the Company. The writ-petitioner was thereafter referred for Internal Medical Examination (IME) at Central Hospital, Naisarai on 22.01.2021 and on examination she was found “Not Fit” for employment as she was suffering from Sickle Cell Anemia, a disease which is progressive in nature. After the writ-petitioner was declared medically unfit she had made a representation dated 11.02.2021 requesting for a re-examination but the same was declined vide letter dated 01.10.2021 citing the relevant provision of the Medical Attendance Rule (MAR). The writ- petitioner had again made representation requesting for a review of the earlier decision based on a medical examination conducted by the Civil Surgeon, Ramgarh but the same was also rejected vide letter dated 08.03.2022. The writ-petitioner had preferred a writ application being W.P.(S) No. 4208 of 2023 challenging the letter of rejection dated 08.03.2022 issued by the respondent no. 5 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30991-DB ) -3- 22.07.2024 and which is the order impugned to the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Harendra Kr. Mahato, learned counsel for the writ-petitioner/appellant that the act of the respondent-authorities speaks of a discrimination in the sense that the authorities have treated the writ-petitioner to be an appointee through a regular process of appointment having not considered the fact that the writ-petitioner was appointed on a compassionate ground. The scheme of compassionate appointment is to equip the dependent of the deceased employee to tide over the financial crisis and rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment of the writ- petitioner would be an act contrary to the beneficial scheme of such appointment. Mr. Mahato has submitted that the father of the writ-petitioner had predeceased her mother and after the death of her mother she has no one to fall upon to support her financially. It has been submitted that Sickle Cell Anemia is a blood disorder which is a disability incorporated in the schedule of Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and, therefore, cannot be discriminated u/s 20 of the said Act with regard to employment. 5. Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL has submitted that the disease suffered by the writ-petitioner is an abnormal recessive chronic condition which may occasion acute crisis or organ disfunction and hence her case cannot be considered for employment. Such disease would not entitle the writ-petitioner to appointment as the main object of medical examination is to secure continuous service to prevent compensation attributable to physical deficiencies and medical expenditure on employees of poor physique. The letters dated 05.02.2021 and 01.10.2021 have not been challenged by the writ- petitioner which has rightly been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. 6. The writ-petitioner was diagnosed with Sickle Cell Anemia in the medical examination carried out by CCL which Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30991-DB ) -4- extinguished her quest for compassionate appointment. In order to rejuvenate her claim the writ-petitioner got herself examined by a Medical Board constituted by the Civil Surgeon, Ramgarh where she was once again detected with Sickle Cell Anemia disease and an observation was made that she was physically fit which was apparently to get over the findings recorded by the concerned authority of CCL of being medically unfit. Since the test conducted by the Medical Board constituted by the Civil Surgeon, Ramgarh and its recommendation appeared to be an exercise carried out without any proper authority, we vide order dated 10.07.2025 had directed the Civil Surgeon, Ranchi to constitute a Medical Board and submit a report after conducting a medical examination of the writ-petitioner. Consequent to the same the report has been submitted through an affidavit confirming the findings reached earlier. 7. The learned Single Judge has come to a conclusion that the letters dated 05.02.2021 and 01.10.2021 have not been challenged by the writ-petitioner. The writ-petitioner in fact has challenged the letter dated 08.03.2022 which is a reiteration of the earlier letters and based on the findings recorded by the Medical Board constituted by the Civil Surgeon, Ramgarh. The letter dated 08.03.2022 is a continuation of the earlier communications regretting the claim for compassionate appointment on the ground of being medically unfit. 8. It is no doubt true that Sickle Cell Anemia is a degenerative disease but with the advent of modern medical science the process of degeneration can be slowed down considerably. The medical report of CCL does not indicate as to whether a person suffering from such disease would be unable to deliver her duties at the workplace and it merely restricts itself to the type of disease. The other aspect is the fact that it is not a regular appointment but an appointment on compassionate ground for a person who has lost both her parents and the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30991-DB ) -5- circumstances demand a considerate approach from the respondent-company which is a public sector enterprise. The learned Single Judge has not considered the broad probabilities which emerge from the case at hand and the authorities have also not embarked on a proper assessment of the capability of the writ- petitioner to discharge her duties in the backdrop of what modern medical science projects in regard to a person suffering from Sickle Cell Anemia. The entire issue needs reconsideration by the authorities on the anvil of what has been stated above and consequently, we set aside the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4208 of 2023 as well as the letter dated 08.03.2022 passed by the respondent no. 5 and remit the matter back to the respondent no. 5 who shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law and in accordance with the findings recorded above within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the letters dated 05.02.2021 and 01.10.2021 shall not act as an impediment for the respondent no. 5 in deciding the issue afresh. 9. This Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions. 10. Pending I.As., if any, stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated, the 08th October, 2025 A. Sanga/-