2026:JHHC:13780 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2593 of 2026 ---------- Vivek Kujur, aged about 19 years, son of late Shri Roshan Kujur, R/o. village Kurgi, P.O. Bindhani, P.S. Itki, Dist. Ranchi-835303, Jharkhand. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhaga House, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi. 2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfield Limited, Darbhaga House, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi. 3. The Project Officer, Office of the Project Officer, Administrative Department, Ashoka OCP, Piparwar Area, P.O. Bachra, P.S. Piparwar Dist. Chatra, Jharkhand-829201 4. Smt. Laxmi Kujur @ Laxmi Kumari, W/o. Roshan Kujur, R/o. Kurgi, Kurgi, P.O. Kurgi, P.S. Itki, Ranchi, Jharkhand-835301. ………. Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek S. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate ---------- 02/ 06.05.2026 By way of present writ application petitioner has prayed for quashing the reasoned order dated 02.08.2025, passed by respondent No. 3, whereby his claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Petitioner has further prayed for cancelling the appointment of respondent No. 4, since she has been appointed by fraud and misrepresentation and after cancelling her appointment, the respondents be directed to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father, who was an employee of the respondent-CCL. 2. From perusal of the records, it appears that earlier also the petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ application being W.P.(S). No. 498 of 2025, with the same prayer for granting him appointment on compassionate ground, since his father, who was an employee respondent- CCL died in harness on 12.07.2024. The said writ application was disposed of vide order dated 04.02.2025, directing the respondents to pass a reasoned order on the application of the petitioner as per the provision of law and the rules which covers the field. 2026:JHHC:13780 2 3. In compliance the Court’s order, the respondents have passed reasoned order dated 02.08.2025 (Annexure-6), by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that compassionate appointment has already been given to the second wife of deceased employee, namely, Smt. Laxmi Kumari @ Laxmi Kujur; as such, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered. 4. From perusal of the reasoned order, it appears that the respondents have considered the application of the petitioner and rejected the same and appointed respondent No. 4 treating her as legally wedded wife of deceased employee. It was further observed that vide office order dated 15.10.2014, the details of dependents of late Roshan Kujur were updated earlier itself wherein upon death of first wife Elizabeth Kujur (wife) on 06.04.2011, the name of Smt. Laxmi Kumari was recorded as wife of late Roshan Kujur in his service records. 5. Having gone through the reasoned order, it appears that after death of petitioner’s wife namely, Elizabeth Kujur, the name of respondent No. 4 was updated in his service record as his wife and since as per law, the wife has the first right to get compassionate appointment; rightly, she has been appointed by the respondents, and as such, there is no question of considering the case of petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground. 6. The compassionate appointment is not a source of appointment but an exception, and the purpose and object of the scheme is to provide immediate support to the family of an employee on his death, that may suddenly find itself in state of destitution and the whole object is to enable the family to ride over the sudden crisis. 7. Accordingly, the writ application being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No cost. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 6th May, 2026 kunal/- Uploaded on 21.05.2026