2026:JHHC:6245 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1469 of 2026 ------ Harinandan Chouhan, aged about 45 years, S/o Rajaram Chouhan, R/o Village-Ray Station, PO & PS-Khalari, Dist-Ranchi. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, PO-GPO, PS-Khalari, Dist-Ranchi. 2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, PO-GPO, PS-Khalari, Dist-Ranchi. 3. The General Manager (P/IR), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, PO-GPO, PS-Khalari, Dist-Ranchi. 4. The Manager (Pers.), Ashok Project, CCL, PO & PS-Bachra, Dist-Chatra. 5. The Project Officer, Ashok Project, CCL, PO & PS-Bachra, Dist-Chatra. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sriwastava, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Aalok Kumar, Advocate ------ 03/ 10th March, 2026 1. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 28.04.2015 (Annexure-4) by which the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The respondents assessed the age of the petitioner between 35 to 40 years, thus, taking the midpoint, respondents arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is of 37 ½ years on the date when his mother was declared as medically unfit. 3. The prayer of the petitioner was rejected on 28.04.2015. After 11 years the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 28.04.2015. 4. After passage of long time, the compassion got diminished. The delay defeats the claim for compassionate appointment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari, (2025) 5 SCC 712, at para 41 had held as under:- “41. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we hold that the respondent-writ petitioners, upon submitting their applications in the year 2006- 2026:JHHC:6245 2 2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter, till the year 2015 i.e. for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy approach of the authorities of the appellant State in dealing with their applications, the respondent-writ petitioners delayed approaching the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the authorities of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching the High Court, may even be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the conduct of the respondent-writ petitioners. Such a delay would disentitle the respondent-writ petitioners to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution………...” 5. Thus, on the ground of delay and latches, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Thus, this writ petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 10.03.2026 S.K.D/CP-2 Uploaded on 12.03.2026