PANKAJ KUMAR RAM v. THE BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS
WPC/7500/2012 · 2025-12-01
Deepak Roshan
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 40205 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 40205 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:36154
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 7500 of 2012 Pankaj Kumar Ram Son of Balram Ram, Resident of Village Sendra -10 No. P.0.Bansjora P.S. Loyebad District Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
... … Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through Managing Director, Koyala Bhawan P.O. Koyala Nagar District Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
2. The Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, Bharat Coking Coal Limited Sijua Area P.O. Sijua P.S. Sijua District Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
3. The Manager, Kankanee Colliery, Sijua Area, P.O. Sijua B.C.C.Ltd. District Dhanbad( Jharkhand).
4. The Project Officer, Kankanee Colliery Sijua Area No.5 P.O. Sijua B.C.C.Ltd. Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
5. The Dy. Manager, Personnel, Kankanee Colliery Sijua Area No.5,B.C.C.Ltd. District Dhanbad (Jharkhand). ... … Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner(s)
: Mr. Gajendra Pd. Roy, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Malviya, Advocate
--------
Order No. 10 /Dated: 1st December 2025
The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:
“1. for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other an appropriate writ or Writs, order or orders, direction or directions Commanding upon the Respondent No.2 and 4 forth with pass an order on the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of Employment under para 10.4.2. of N.C.W.A-II, which are being issued as per provisions of B.C.C-L. area of dependent of Ex-employee is entitled to get a B.C.C.L. job.
And/or May issue any other direction/directions, order/orders on the facts and circumstances of the case as being set forth here in below.”
2. From record it appears that on 18.08.2010 itself the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected however the same has not been assailed in the writ application though it has been annexed as Annexure-6 by admitting that the respondents have rejected the
2025:JHHC:36154
2
claim.
3. Having regard to the above, the instant writ application is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate step, if so advised.
4. Pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) 1st December, 2025 Amit Uploaded on 5/12/2025