Jharkhand High Court
Ranu Hari vs The Chairman-Cum- Managing Director on 17 April, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath
(2025:JHHC:11690-DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 614 of 2024
Ranu Hari, aged about 48 years, wife of Sanjay Hari, C/o Sri R. K. Singh,
resident of Baludih Colony, Quarter No.BA-18, Moonidih, P.O. and P.S.-
Moonidih, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) --- Appellant
Versus
1. The Chairman-cum- Managing Director, M/S B.C.C.L. Koyla Bhavan
Nagar, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. and District- Dhanbad
2. Project Officer, Damagoria Colliery (Chanch Victoria Area), Bharat
Coking Coal Limited, P.O. and P.S.- Kalyaneshwari, District- Bardhman
(West Bengal) --- Respondents
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
: Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
---
03/17.04.2025
Heard Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondents.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.07.2024 passed in
W.P.(S) No.7190 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for
compassionate appointment made by the writ petitioner has been rejected.
Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the husband of the appellant went missing in the year 1998
and a suit was preferred in the year 2009 for declaring the civil death of her
husband which was ultimately decided on 28.06.2013. It has been submitted
that the appellant had raised valid grounds for compassionate appointment.
However, the respondent authority did not consider her application and the
same was rejected. Ultimately, the petitioner has preferred the writ
application, which resulted in the impugned order dated 29.07.2024.
Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-
B.C.C.L. has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing
Director and Others Vs. Parden Oraon as reported in 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 299. He submits that after the suit was disposed of, the case of the
appellant was considered for grant of compassionate appointment and the
same was rejected.
Mr. A. K. Das further submits that the learned Single Judge was
correct in dismissing the writ application on the ground that a belated claim
was made by the appellant/writ petitioner.
There is no dispute with respect to the application made in the year
1998 when the husband of the appellant went missing and a suit was
preferred for declaring the civil death of her husband in Title Suit No.40 of
2009 which was decided on 28.06.2013. It also appears that the prayer for
grant of compassionate appointment was rejected by the competent
authority, after the suit was decreed in the year 2014. The appellant has
challenged the order of rejection of claim for compassionate appointment
after nine years in the year 2023. This shows that there has been laches on
the part of the appellant and as such, belated claim made by the appellant has
rightly been rejected by the learned Single Judge.
Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the Respondent-BCCL has
referred the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and
Managing Director and Others Vs. Parden Oraon (Supra,) wherein it has
been held as follows:-
8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to
enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the
death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in
harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The
authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the
family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the
provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis
that the job is offered to the eligible member of the family. It was
further asseverated in the said judgment that compassionate
employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as
the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can
be exercised at any time in the future. It was further held that the object
of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the
financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole
breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered
after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
9. We are in agreement with the High Court that the reasons given by
the employer for denying compassionate appointment to the
Respondent's son are not justified. There is no bar in the National Coal
Wage Agreement for appointment of the son of an employee who has
suffered civil death. In addition, merely because the respondent is
working, her son cannot be denied compassionate appointment as per
the relevant clauses of the National Coal Wage Agreement. However,
the Respondent's husband is missing since 2002. Two sons of the
Respondent who are the dependents of her husband as per the records,
are also shown as dependents of the Respondent. It cannot be said that
there was any financial crisis created immediately after Respondent's
husband went missing in view of the employment of the Respondent.
Though the reasons given by the employer to deny the relief sought by
the Respondent are not sustainable, we are convinced that the
Respondent's son cannot be given compassionate appointment at this
point of time. The application for compassionate appointment of the
son was filed by the Respondent in the year 2013 which is more than
10 years after the Respondent's husband had gone missing. As the
object of compassionate appointment is for providing immediate
succour to the family of a deceased employee, the Respondent's son is
not entitled for compassionate appointment after the passage of a long
period of time since his father has gone missing.
On consideration of the entire facets of the case, we do not find any
error to interfere with the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.7190 of 2023 and consequently, this appeal is
dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Jay- Rahul/
