2026:JHHC:5813 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1306 of 2026 ----- Deo Kumar Manjhi, S/O of late Badkikamin (Mother) S/O late Chattulal Manjhi (Father) Resident of village Sarubera Basti P.O- Sarubera Colony, P.S- Mandu, District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand. ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. Central Coalfield Limited through its Chairman Cum Managing Director at Darbhanga House, P.O- N.C.D.C Sub Post Office, P.S Kotwali District - Ranchi. 2. Director Personal Central Coalfields Limited at Darbhanga House, P.O- N.C.D.C Sub Post Office, P.S- Kotwali District - Ranchi. 3. General Manager (P & R) Central Coalfields Limited at Darbhanga House, P.O- N.C.D.C Sub Post Office, P.S- Kotwali District - Ranchi 4. General Manager Central Coalfields Limited, Kuju Area At P.O Kuju, P.S- Mandu District - Ramgarh. 5. The Project officer Central Coalfield limited, Sarubera Colliery At Sarubera P.O- Sarubera Colony P.S. Mandu, District Ramgarh., 6. Senior Staff Officer, Central Coalfield limited, Sarubera Colliery At Sarubera P.O- Sarubera Colony P.S. Mandu, District - Ramgarh. …Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Prakash, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Choudhary, Advocate : Mr. Aalok Kumar, Advocate …...... 02/ 25.02.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- For issuance of an appropriate writs / order(s)/ Directions or writ in nature of Certiorari for quashing of the order dated 0.8.01.2025 passed by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure -7) has not been considered by the case of the petitioner on merit in spite of twice direction by this Hon’ble Court based in WP(S) No. 558/2016 vide order dated 27.6.2016 and has rejected the representation of the petitioner last manner. So as after sitting tight for 3 years of relationship certificate was demanded from the petitioner at of sudden on 25.5.2019 during the screening of the petitioner by area screening committee without even waiting for a month rejected the case of the Petitioner for employment under clause 9.5.0 / 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A (National Coal Wage Agreement) thereafter petitioner once again file a WP(S) No 637 / 2021 for his employment Hon’ble Court directed to file a fresh representation along with relationship certificate 2026:JHHC:5813 2 before the Respondent No- 4 and respondent shall pass such reason order within a period of six weeks. 2. The petitioner’s mother, Late Badki Kamin, was employed as a P.R. Worker in CCL. The petitioner is her son and was about 16 years old at the time of her death. She died in harness on 02.12.2000. After first round of litigation, in the second round on 26.07.2021, the Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 637/2021 directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation with the Relationship Certificate for claiming Compassionate Appointment. The petitioner submitted all required documents, including the relationship certificate. The petitioner submitted his first representation on 14.01.2022, but the respondent did not pass any order on it. Later, he submitted a second representation on 25.11.2024, which was rejected on 08.01.2025 on the ground of delay. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner without considering his representations. He further submits that rejection of the petitioner’s claim was wholly arbitrary and unjustified, particularly when the delay was caused by the respondent authority in not deciding the representation within the prescribed period. He also submits that as per Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of N.C.W.A.- VI, a male dependent aged 12 years and above is required to be kept on the Live Roster and is entitled to employment upon attaining majority. The respondent did not followed the proper process and ignored the documents submitted by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for respondents submits that the respondent has acted strictly in accordance with the rules. There was considerable delay on part of the petitioner. He further submits that the respondent considered the matter and rejected 2026:JHHC:5813 3 the representation on 08.01.2025 on the ground of delay and non- fulfillment of required conditions. He also submits that Compassionate appointment is not a right but an exception to the general rule of public employment, thus the scheme must be strictly followed. He further submits that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of time, especially when the immediate crisis which arose out of the death of the employee, diminishes. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I am of the view that compassionate appointments are meant to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the deceased employee who dies in harness. The same cannot be claimed as a matter of right after an inordinate delay. The petitioner's mother died long back and the petitioner was about 16 years old at that time. There has been substantial delay in pursuing the matter effectively. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 has held that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family. It is necessary to quote relevant part of paragraph 11 of the said judgment- 11. Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment on compassionate ground are legion and it would be apt for us to consider certain well-settled principles, which have crystallized through precedents into a rule of law. They are (not in sequential but contextual order): a)… b)… c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in two contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general rule, viz. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on account of death or of medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. d) The whole object of granting compassionate employment by an employer being intended to enable the family members of a deceased or an incapacitated employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis, appointments on compassionate ground should be made immediately to redeem the family in distress. 2026:JHHC:5813 4 Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SAIL v. Gouri Devi reported in (2022) 17 SCC 531 at paragraph 10 has held as under- 10. As held by this Court in Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Nirval Singh [Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 210] delay in pursuing claim/approaching court would militate against claim for compassionate appointment as very objective of providing immediate amelioration to family would stand extinguished. Before this Court, there was a delay of 07 years in approaching the Court and this Court observed and held that on the ground of delay itself, the heir/dependant of the deceased employee shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the cases of compassionate appointment, in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Ors. reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712 has held that the delay defeats the claim of compassionate appointment either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim. In paragraph 35 it has been held as under- 35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependants of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee. 7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgments, I find that considerable time has now lapsed from the date of death of the 2026:JHHC:5813 5 employee. Petitioner’s mother died on 2000 and today we are in 2026. Thus, a long time has passed. The very purpose of compassionate appointment stands defeated due to the long lapse of time. The family has survived for the 25 years. The immediate distress has now been overcome by the family in these twenty five years. Thereafter 25 years of death, it will not be proper to direct the respondent to grant compassionate appointment. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this case. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 25th February, 2026 R.S./ Uploaded on 28/02/2026