2026:JHHC:6311 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1477 of 2026 ------ Krishna Bhuia, aged about 44 years, son of Late Raman Bhuia, Resident of Village-Nichitpur Township, Quarter No.113, PO- Bansjora, PS-Tetulmari, Dist-Dhanbad-828101. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyala Bhawan, PO & PS-Koyla Nagar, Dist-Dhanbad, Jharkhand,826005. 2. Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyala Bhawan, PO & PS-Koyla Nagar, Dist-Dhanbad, Jharkhand,826005. 3. General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Sijua Area, PO Bansjora, PS-Tetulmari, Dist- Dhanbad, Jharkhand 828121. 4. Deputy General Manager (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Sijua Area, PO Bansjora, PS-Tetulmari, Dist- Dhanbad, Jharkhand 828121. 5. Regional Manager (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Sijua Area, PO Bansjora, PS-Tetulmari, Dist-Dhanbad, Jharkhand 828121. 6. Project Officer, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Tetulmari Colliery, office at Tetulmrai, PO & PS-Tetulmari, Dist- Dhanbad, Jharkhand, 828101. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Uttam Kr. Das, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate Mr. T. Mohanta, Advocate ------ 03/ 10th March, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment. He also prays for monetary compensation. 3. The petitioner’s father who was posted as a Timber Labour at Tetulmari Colliery died in harness on 08.09.1996. At the time of death, the petitioner was minor, thus, mother of the petitioner on 22.10.1996 submitted an application to provide compassionate appointment to her son on attaining 18 years of age. Further, the petitioner also submitted an application on 09.08.2000 to provide him compassionate appointment when he attained 18 years of age. 2026:JHHC:6311 2 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his application has not been disposed of nor any monetary compensation has been provided. 5. From the facts of this case, I find that the father of the petitioner died on 08.09.1996 and at that time, the petitioner was minor, thus the respondent-authorities rejected the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner vide letter dated 26.04.2001. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner. The respondents also offered mother of the petitioner, monetary compensation, which she denied. 6. The purpose of giving compassionate appointment is to see that the family tides over the immediate financial crises. After passage of long time, the compassion diminishes. Long delay defeats the purpose of compassionate appointment. 7. In this case, I find that the petitioner represented before the respondents on 09.08.2000 which was rejected by the respondents on 26.04.2001. After that the petitioner has not taken any action and slept over the matter. Only on 2026, the petitioner wake up from his slumbers and filed this writ petition after a long delay. Such a long delay disentitled the petitioner from claiming compassionate appointment. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari”, reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712, at para 41 had held as under:- “41. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we hold that the respondent-writ petitioners, upon submitting their applications in the year 2006- 2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter, till the year 2015 i.e. for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy approach of the authorities of the appellant State in dealing with their applications, the respondent-writ petitioners delayed approaching the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the authorities of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching the High Court, may even be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the conduct of the respondent-writ petitioners. Such a delay would disentitle the respondent-writ petitioners to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution………...” 9. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see 2026:JHHC:6311 3 that the family gets immediate relief. In the case in hand, the employee died on 08.09.1996, and we are in 2026. Nearly 30 years have lapsed now. With passage of this long period, no compassion remains. The family has tied over the immediate financial crisis. 10. Considering all these facts, compassionate appointment cannot be granted to the petitioner. 11. So far as monetary compensation is concerned, from the record I find that when the respondents offered monetary compensation to the mother of the petitioner, she denied the same and neither the petitioner or her mother took any action after that and only on 2026, the petitioner is claiming monetary compensation. In view of the aforesaid fact, the claim of monetary compensation also cannot be considered by this Court. 12. Thus, no relief can be granted to this petitioner in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 10.03.2026 S.K.D/CP-2 Uploaded on 13.03.2026