2026:JHHC:5615-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.3485 of 2012 ----- Ambawati, daughter of Late Manna Ram Manjhi, resident of Sidhu Kanho Nagar, (Jorakath), P.O.-Rajrappa Project, P.S. Rajrappa, District-Ramgarh. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi. 2. The Director Personnel, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi. 3. The General Manager (P & I.R.), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranch. 4. General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Rajrappa Area, Ramgarh. 5. The Senior Personnel Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Rajrappa Project, Ramgarh. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Karbir, Advocate ----- Order No.15 Date: 25.02.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition was instituted by Rupumani, wife of Late Manna Ram Manjhi and their daughter Ambawati seeking compassionate appointment on account of demise of late Manna Ram Manjhi, who died in harness on 13th September, 1998. 3. The petitioner’s application primarily sought appointment of Ambawati on compassionate basis. This claim was turned down by communication dated 25th September, 2002 on two grounds:- i. The son of the deceased, late Manna Ram Manjhi was already employed in CCL; and ii. The application seeking compassionate appointment was made two years after the demise of late Manna Ram 2026:JHHC:5615-DB 2 Manjhi when such application had to be made within six months, which period was later on extended to eighteen months. 4. This petition, according to the roster and the rules pertained to the assignment of the learned Single Judge. However, by order dated 22nd July, 2016, the learned Single Judge ordered the matter to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for reference to a Larger Bench. This was in the context of Circular dated 16th April, 2008 by which Central Coalfields Limited had agreed to re- examine or re-consider the cases of double employment on merit. 5. The learned Single Judge’s referral order dated 22nd July, 2016 is transcribed below for the convenience of reference:- “It has been informed to this Court that petitioner No. 1 has died. The name of petitioner No. 1 be struck off from the cause title of this petition. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of compassionate appointment on the death of her father namely Late Manna Ram Manjhi, who died in harness on 13.9.1998. Late Manna Ram Manjhi was an employee of Central Coalfields Limited (for short CCL), working as Category III in Rajrappa Project. The claim for compassionate appointment of the daughter of the deceased was turned down on 25.9.2002 on the ground that the son of the deceased, namely, late Manna Ram Manjhi is already employed in CCL and the application for compassionate appointment was made after two years. 3. It is not disputed that the son of the deceased late Manna Ram Manjhi is already in employment under CCL. 4. The CCL has issued a circular dated 16.4.2008 by which it had agreed to “re-examine” and “re-consider” the cases of double employment on its merit. The decision was taken by the Functional Director of the Company- M/s CCL, on persistent demand of all the labour Union. The cases of compassionate appointment, which were closed on the ground of double 2026:JHHC:5615-DB 3 employment, were decided to be re-examined and re considered. The said decision reads as under; “On persistent demand of all the Union members at various meetings/forums, it was decided to re examine and re-consider the cases of double employment of its merit. It was also informed that such cases will be assigned seniority below the cases of compassionate appointment pending on date. In this regard, the Union members submitted that as these cases are quite old they may be assigned seniority from 01.04.07. The suggestion of the union members was agreed to.” 5. From perusal of the said decision, it is understood that the CCL had taken a decision to re-consider and re-examine the cases which were earlier rejected on the ground of double employment, meaning thereby, the persons whose cases were rejected on the ground that one of the dependents is already in service, will be re-opened again and will be considered on its own merit. The decision also suggests that the objection to the effect that a dependent is already employed in CCL will not be a hurdle for getting compassionate appointment for those applicants whose case stood rejected earlier. By this decision, CCL decided to re-examine and re-consider the cases of double employment on its merits. It was also mentioned that those cases will be re-examined and re-considered and will be assigned seniority below the cases of compassionate appointment pending on date. 6. The use of the words “reconsider” and “re- examine” suggest that the earlier rejected cases will be re- opened by CCL and thereafter the cases will be assigned seniority below the cases of compassionate appointment pending as on 16.4.2008. 7. This decision nowhere suggests that the claimants whose cases were rejected earlier, on the ground of double employment, will have to apply afresh and they have to represent before the authority for their re-consideration. It was the voluntary decision of CCL to re-examine and re-consider the cases, meaning thereby, the earlier rejected cases on the ground of double employment will be suo motu considered again. 2026:JHHC:5615-DB 4 8. At this juncture, order dated 3.11.2015, passed by a Co ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 2678 of 2014, has been placed before this Court. In the said order, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the Circular dated 16.04.2008, which the petitioner in this case is also relying, does not mention that the said circular will be operative retrospectively and thereafter rejected the claim. 9. In view of the nature of the Circular and the purpose for which it has been issued, this Court feels that the question of retrospective or prospective application is irrelevant. This Court feels that the sole purpose of the Circular is to re-open the earlier rejected cases only. Thus, this Court differs with the decision rendered by another Single Bench of this Court in WPS No. 2678 of 2014 on 03.11.2015. 10. Thus, to decide the entire issue and the true purport of the Circular, let this case be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for referring the same to a larger Bench.” 6. We have perused the order dated 3rd November, 2015 in W.P.(S) No.2678 of 2014 (Naresh Ram vs. M/s. Central Coalfields Limited and Ors.) and the issue therein indeed concerned the retrospective or prospective operation of CCL’s Circular dated 16th April, 2008. The learned Single Judge in the referral order referred to above has disagreed with the judgment and order dated 3rd November, 2015, in Naresh Ram (Supra). However, the referral order also states that the issue of retrospective or prospective application of the Circular dated 16th April, 2008 is quite irrelevant in the facts of the present case. 7. As noted above, the rejection of the petitioner’s application was on two grounds. The first ground concerns double employment, and the second concerns the belated application for a compassionate appointment. 2026:JHHC:5615-DB 5 8. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, it would be argued that the Circular dated 16th April, 2008 was relevant. However, insofar as the second ground is concerned, the Circular of 16th April, 2008 was clearly irrelevant. 9. The rules concerning compassionate appointment had originally provided that such an application should be made within six months. However, in the meeting of Joint Consultative Committee of CCL held on 24th October, 2011, it was resolved that in cases of compassionate appointment where the employee died on or after 12th December, 1995 and the cases of compassionate appointment of their dependant family members have been rejected on the ground of delay beyond six months from the date of death of the employee, such cases shall be considered provided the delay was only up to one and half years from the date of death of the employee concerned. The reasons for such extension were also set out in the minutes. 10. Admittedly, in this case, late Manna Ram Manjhi died in harness on 13th September, 1998. The application for compassionate appointment was made on 10th December, 2001, i.e., much after the eighteen-month period prescribed. Therefore, even if we assume that the Circular dated 16th April, 2008, which concerns the issue of double employment in the context of compassionate appointment, had some relevance, the said circular had no relevance whatsoever in the context of consideration of belated applications seeking compassionate appointments. 2026:JHHC:5615-DB 6 11. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no reason to go into the issue of alleged conflict between the two Single Judges concerning the interpretation of Circular dated 16th April, 2008 or to examine the question of retrospectivity or prospectivity of the said circular. Our decision, either way, will not change the position regarding the ground of the belated/time-barred application seeking compassionate appointment. 12. That apart, this is a matter where late Manna Ram Manjhi died in harness on 13th September, 1998. During the pendency of this petition, his widow, Rupumani, also expired. There is nothing on record to show that Rupumani had applied for any financial benefits. The belated application had only sought a compassionate appointment for the daughter, Ambawati. By now, Ambawati is stated to be 42 years old. 13. The object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to a family on account of the unfortunate demise of the earning member. At this belated juncture, it would not be appropriate to grant any relief to the petitioner. This is not as if the delay was on account of the pendency of this matter, but this is a case where even the petitioner delayed in applying for a compassionate appointment. In fact, the application was made well beyond the prescribed period for such applications. The petitioner’s son/brother was already in the employment of the CCL at the time of the demise of his father, late Manna Ram Manjhi. 2026:JHHC:5615-DB 7 14. For all the above reasons, we are satisfied that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this matter. Consequently, we dismiss this petition without any order for costs. 15. Nothing in this petition will preclude the petitioner or other legal representatives of Rupumani, if entitled under the law, from seeking monetary compensation. However, all questions regarding entitlement, bar of limitation, etc. are explicitly left open. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 25th February, 2026 Sanjay/Rohit Uploaded on 28.02.2026