1 2026:JHHC:16810 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3779 of 2026 ----- Uttam Kr. Mahato @ Niranjan Mahato, aged about 41 years, Son of Kali Charan Mahato, Resident of Village-Gourkhuti, Bhowta, Kanchanpur, P.O. & P.S.-Bhowra, Dist.-Dhanbad ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited represented through its Chairman cum Managing Director, office at Koyala Bhawan, P.O.-Koyala Nagar, Dist. Dhanbad. 2. The Director (Personnel), M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, office at Koyala Bhawan, P.O.-Koyala Nagar, Dist.-Dhanbad. 3. The General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Bhowra Area, P.O. & P.S.-Bhowra, Dist.-Dhanbad. 4. The Project Officer, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Bhowra Area, P.O. & P.S.-Bhowra, Dist.-Dhanbad. 5. Santosh Kumar Mahato, Son of Battu Lal Mahato, Resident of Village-Gourkhuti, Bhowta, Kanchanpur, P.O. & P.S.-Bhowra, Dist.- Dhanbad. … Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramchander Sahu, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Shivam U. Sahay, Advocate …...... 02/10.06.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- i. For a direction upon the respondent concerned to recover the amount of maintenance payable to the family of the deceased Kali Charan Mahto from the salary of respondent no. 5 and the same may be paid to the petitioner. ii. For direction upon the concerned respondent to enquire the appointment of late Batulal Mahato whose appointment had been made in illegal manner in lieu of acquisition of land without the consent of other co-sharer of the acquired land and they never nominated Late Battu Lal Mahato for the job under land looser scheme and petitioner further prayed for direction upon the respondent to provide appointment to him against as the petitioner is the rightful owner of the acquired land. 2. The fact of the case is that the land measuring 51 decimals situated at Thana No. 113, Plot No. 204, 230, 303, 299, 231, 238, 239, 304 2 belonged to Kali Charan Mahato and other co-sharers and was acquired by the respondent company for coal mining. In lieu of the acquisition, petitioner's father, Kali Charan Mahato, was appointed as a Fitter/Helper who served until his retirement on 04.11.2018. After his death, the petitioner became one of his legal heirs and dependents. The father of Respondent No. 5, namely Battu Lal Mahato, was also employed against the acquired land. The petitioner alleges that Battu Lal Mahato, was under an obligation to maintain the family of Kali Charan Mahato. Under an agreement, he was required to pay Rs.5,000 per month and a lump sum amount of Rs.4,00,000 to the deceased employee's family. Neither Battu Lal Mahato nor Respondent No. 5, who later on obtained compassionate appointment because of death of his father fulfilled that obligation. The petitioner claims entitlement to maintenance, employment-related benefits, and consideration for employment as a legal heir of a co-sharer of the acquired land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents acted illegally and arbitrarily by failing to take action on his complaint regarding the non-maintenance of the deceased employee's family. He further submits that the petitioner, being a dependent and legal heir of a co- sharer of the acquired land, is entitled to maintenance, benefits arising from the employment, and consideration for employment in lieu of the acquired land. He also submits that Respondent No. 5 was obligated to maintain and support the family of the deceased employee in accordance with the agreement but failed to do so. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner's claim regarding payment of maintenance and recovery of money is based on an alleged private agreement and involves disputed questions of fact. Such issues cannot be adjudicated by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner has any claim under a private agreement, he may pursue the appropriate remedy before a competent civil court. It is also submitted that Respondent No. 5 was granted compassionate appointment in accordance 3 with the applicable rules and policy which was not questioned then. The petitioner cannot challenge the said appointment after a long delay, particularly when no legal right of the petitioner has been violated. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the petitioner’s main claim is about recovery of maintenance based on an alleged private agreement and also a challenge to the appointment of Respondent No. 5. These issues are disputed and require proof of facts, which cannot be decided in a writ petition. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner has not been able to show any legal right that has been violated which calls for interference by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The claim of recovery of maintenance from the salary of Respondent No.5 also cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. Further the petitioner has challenged Respondent No. 5’s compassionate appointment after a long delay, and he has not shown any proper evidence to prove that the appointment was illegal or arbitrary. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. If the petitioner wants to make any claim against Respondent no. 5, it will be open to him to file appropriate application before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 10th June, 2026 Anu/- Cp2. Uploaded on: 16.6.2026