Rakhi Kumari v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors
WPC/7190/2016 · 2026-01-30
Deepak Roshan
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 4332 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 4332 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:2670 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7190 of 2016
-- Rakhi Kumari, D/o Late Binod Hari, resident of Kankanee, No.12, P.O. Bashjora, P.S. Lioyabad, District – Dhanbad
....Petitioner
Versus
1. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director having its Office at Koyala Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. Jagjivan Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District - Dhanbad. 2. Director Personal (P&IR), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. having its Office at Koyala Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. Jagjivan Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District - Dhanbad. 3. General Manager, Titulmari of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. having its Office at Sijua Area, P.O. & P.S. Sijua, District - Dhanbad. 4. Project Officer, Titulma0ri of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. having its Office at Sijua Area, P.O. & P.S. Sijua, District - Dhanbad. 5. Jaggu Hari, S/o Sri Binod Hari, R/o. Kankanee, No. 12, P.O. Bashjora, P.S. Lioyobad, Dist.- Dhanbad
....Respondents
-- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate For the Resp.-BCCL : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Malviya, Advocate For the Resp. No. 5 : Mr. Rishi Ranjan Vats, Advocate
--
11/30.01.2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner praying therein for quashing the letter bearing no. 130/2012 dated 05.10.2012, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 3. From the record, it appears that the mother of the petitioner, namely, Karmi Hadin was an employee of B.C.C.L since 04.01.1974, who died on 26.04.1993. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner also died. The
2026:JHHC:2670 2
petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment on 02.08.2012 when she attained majority. 4. From the counter affidavit, it appears that at the time of death of erstwhile employee, Karmi Hadin petitioner was six years old. It further appears that the petitioner has applied for her appointment on compassionate ground on 16.08.2012 although her mother died on 26.04.1993 which is about 19 years after the death of her mother. 5. Thus, the fact remains that the claim of compassionate appointment on the basis of deceased employee, who died on 26.04.1993 and we are in the year 2026, so there is no scope to entertain this writ application any more, as the very object of compassionate appointment is now frustrated. 6.
Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, the instant writ application is dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.)
30th January, 2026
Jk/
Uploaded on
12/03/2026