Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:13338-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 484 of 2025 (with I.A. No. 10771 of 2025) Soni Devi, aged about 35 years, Wife of Late Kailash Dome, resident of Dhori No 5, Dhoura, near Hanuman Mandir, P.O.- Dhori, P.S. – Bema, District – Bokaro, Jharkhand. ... Respondent/Appellant Versus 1. Jitni Devi, aged about 40 years, Wife of Shri Lala Dome, Daughter of Late Kailash Dome, Resident of 5 No. Dhaura, Near Dhori Ground, P.O.- Dhori, P.S.-Bermo, Dist-Bokaro. … Writ Petitioner/Respondent 2. M/s Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman -cum-Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi, Office at Kutchery Road, P.O. & P.S.-Morabadi, Dist-Ranchi. 3. The Director Personnel (Head Quarter), Central Coal fields ltd., Darbhanga House, Ranchi, Office at Kutchery Road, P.O. & P.S.- Morabadi, Dist.-Ranchi. 4. The General Manager (H.R.D.), Central Coalfields Ltd., Darbhanga House, Ranchi, office at Kutchery Road, P.O. & P.S.-Morabadi, Dist.- Ranchi. 5. The General Manager (P&IR), Central Coal fields Ltd., Dharbhanga House, Ranchi, Office at Kutchery Road, P.O. & P.S.-Morabadi, Dist.- Ranchi. 6. The Project Officer, Dhori Colliery, P.O.- Dhori, P.S.- Bermo, Dist- Bokaro. 7. The Staff Officer, CCL, Dhori Area, P.O.- Dhori, P.S.- Bermo, Dist.- Bokaro. 8. The Project Officer, Amlo OCM, CCL, Dhori Area, P.O.- Dhori, P.S.- Bermo, Dist.- Bokaro. … Respondents/Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellant: Mr Shubham Kumar, Advocate Mr Surya Prakash, Advocate For Resp Nos.2-8: Mr Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr Shubham Malviya, Advocate --------- 02/Dated: 05.05.2026 I.A. No. 10771 of 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:13338-DB 2. This IA seeks condonation of delay of 162 days in instituting this appeal. 3. We have perused the averments in the IA, and we are satisfied that they disclose sufficient cause. 4. Therefore, the delay is condoned, and the IA is disposed of. L.P.A. No. 484 of 2025 5. Upon condoning the delay, with consent, we have taken up the appeal for a hearing. 6. The appeal is directed against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 25.04.2024 disposing of the 1st respondent’s W.P. (S) No. 4304 of 2021. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no direction could have been issued regarding the grant of a compassionate appointment to Jitni Devi based only on a registered will. He submits that other factors, such as the appellant being the deceased employee's second wife, should have been considered. 8. We have considered the submission made on behalf of the appellant. We believe that the submission is based on a misconception of what the impugned order directs. 9. To appreciate the same, we transcribe paragraphs 5 and 6 of the learned Single Judge’s impugned order dated 25.04.2024:- “5. Ms. Ranjana Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Central Coalfields Limited argues that due to family dispute, the respondents could not take any decision. As and when the Probate case is disposed, they may be able to grant benefits on the basis of proper documents. 6. Be that as it may. The respondents – Central Coalfields Limited is directed to take decision on the basis of probate of will, as and when provided by the parties. It is open to the respondents to pass appropriate order in accordance with law Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:13338-DB based on the documents produced by the parties. While granting death-cum-retiral benefits, the respondents shall also take a decision with respect to grant of compassionate appointment to the concerned. Respondents are directed to take decision within a period of six weeks from the date of production of relevant documents by the parties.” 10. From the above, it is apparent that the learned Single Judge has not directed the grant of a compassionate appointment to Jitni Devi based merely on the registered will. Learned Single Judge has only held that since probate proceedings in relation to the said will are pending, as and when such proceedings are disposed of, and the probate is produced, the parties may seek death-cum-retiral benefits and compassionate appointment. This is apparent from reading paragraph 6 of the learned Single Judge’s impugned order. 11. Thus, this is not a case where any benefits of compassionate appointment or death-cum-retiral benefits have been awarded to any party based merely on the registered will. The learned Counsel for the Appellant agreed that the probate proceedings to which the Appellant is a party are at an advanced stage. 12. There is no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge, and consequently, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) May 05, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 06.05.2026