[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Bhuia vs The Central Coalfields Limited ... on 3 December, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:36181-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 105 of 2025
Ashok Bhuia, aged about 35 years, son of Late Saguni Bhuia, At present
residing at Jharkhand 15 No. Colony, P.O. Kedla, P.S. Mandu, District
Ramgarh, Jharkhand ... ... ... Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. The Central Coalfields Limited represented through its Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.
G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi
2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, having its
office at Darbhanga House, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.
3. The General Manager (P & IR), Central Coalfields Limited, having
its office at Darbhanga House, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.
4. The General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Hazaribagh
Area, At. & P.O. Charhi, P.S. and District Hazaribag, Jharkhand
5. The Project Officer, Jharkhand Open Cast Project, Central
Coalfields Limited, At. and P.O. Kedla, P.S. Mandu, District Ramgarh,
Jharkhand ... ... ... Respondents/Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellant: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Om Prakash Prasad, Advocate
For the Resp.-CCL: Mr. Abhishek Choudhary, Advocate
---------
04/Dated: 03.12.2025
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. (Oral)
1. Even though this Interlocutory Application seeking condonation of
delay of 154 days is vehemently opposed, however, for the reasons set
out in the application, we find sufficient cause to condone the delay of 154
days in filing the appeal.
2. Ordered accordingly.
3. This Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.
4. The petitioner (appellant herein) had approached the respondents
seeking compassionate appointment without disclosing that his deceased
father in fact had three wives. When the application was not decided, the
2025:JHHC:36181-DB
petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 4567 of 2014, the
same was disposed of vide order dated 16.09.2014 with a direction to
respondent No. 5 i.e. the Project Officer, Jharkhand Open Cast Project,
Central Coalfields Limited, Kedla, Mandu, Ramgarh, to take a decision on
the representation of the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks after
due verification of the relevant records of the deceased employee and
also being satisfied that he was the rightful claimant for the same. The
petitioner admittedly did not submit the representation within the
stipulated time and rather filed Contempt Case (Civil) No. 86 of 2015
which was dismissed as withdrawn as is evident from the order dated
19.06.2015.
5. Later on, the petitioner again filed another contempt case being
Contempt Case (Civil) No. 359 of 2022 and it is therein that for the first
time the petitioner disclosed that his late father was in fact having three
wives and a number of children. The contempt case was disposed of vide
order dated 30th of August 2023 after observing that no contempt was
made out against the opposite parties for non-compliance of order dated
16.09.2014 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4567 of 2014. It was further observed:
"In fact, it appears that the petitioner was negligent
throughout as in spite of the order having been passed by this
Court about 9 years back, the petitioner has not submitted the
desired document and even now some of the affidavits are still
missing, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2."
6. The petitioner thereafter again approached the writ Court by filing
W.P.(S) No. 1731 of 2024 wherein again he sought appointment on
compassionate ground which petition came to be dismissed vide order
dated 15.05.2024 by the learned writ Court on the ground of delay as it
2025:JHHC:36181-DB
was after almost eleven years after the death of his father that the
petitioner was seeking compassionate appointment.
7. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned writ Court, the
petitioner /appellant has filed the instant appeal mainly on the ground that
it was on account of the non grant of 'No Objection Certificate' by the 3rd
wife that the claim of the petitioner could not be decided and now that the
3rd wife has given an affidavit sworn on 12.04.2023 recommending the
case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in place of her
deceased husband, the petitioner ought to be granted compassionate
appointment.
8. We find no merit in the said contention given the fact that firstly the
respondents cannot be held to be responsible for any delay in considering
the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Secondly, the
delay was entirely on account of the internal issues between the petitioner
and his larger family for which again the respondents cannot be held
responsible. Thirdly, the petitioner ought to have disclosed the fact
regarding his late father having three wives at the time when he initially
approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 4567 of 2014 and having
failed to disclose the same obviously the instant appeal based on these
grounds is not tenable in view of the principles as embodied in Order II
Rule 2 CPC.
9. In addition to the above, the case of the petitioner cannot be
considered at such belated stage, after all, the family of the petitioner, as
rightly observed by the learned writ Court, would by now have come out
of the pecuniary circumstances, for which purpose alone, the provisions
of compassionate appointment are ordinarily made in the departments.
2025:JHHC:36181-DB
Lastly and more importantly, compassionate appointment is not a source
of recruitment for which the petitioner can claim as a matter of right.
10. For all the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this appeal.
The same is consequently dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if
any, stands closed.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
03.12.2025
N.A.F.R.
VK/Pramanik
Uploaded on 05.12.2025
