Jharkhand High Court
The Central Coalfields Limited Through ... vs Mina Devi on 10 November, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:33605-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.575 of 2024
-----
1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi,
P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, having its
office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The General Manager (Personnel) (IR-L/NEE), Central Coalfields
Limited, having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. &
P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The General Manager, Barka Sayal Area, Central Coalfields
Limited, P.O.-Sayal-'D', P.S. Patratu, District-Ramgarh,
Jharkhand.
5. The Project Officer, Sayal 'D' Colliery, Central Coalfields Limited,
P.O.-Sayal-'D', P.S. Patratu, District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
6. The Personnel Manager, Sayal 'D' Colliery, Central Coalfields
Limited, P.O.-Sayal-'D', P.S. Patratu, District-Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. .......... Appellants
-Versus-
Mina Devi, wife of Late Mahesh Bhuinya, resident of Mandu
Chatti, P.O. and P.S. Mandu, District-Ramgarh.
.......... Respondent.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Nandan Prasad, Advocate
-----
Order No.04 Date: 10.11.2025
Per : Rajesh Shankar, J.
I.A. No.10458 of 2024:
1. For the reasons stated in the application, we find sufficient cause
to condone the delay of 115 days that has crept up in filing of the
appeal.
2. Ordered accordingly.
3. I.A. No.10458 of 2024 is disposed of.
L.P.A. No.575 of 2024:
4. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated
26.04.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No.3169 of 2020, whereby the
2025:JHHC:33605-DB
learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ petition directing the
respondents (the appellants herein) to pay monetary compensation
to the writ petitioner/respondent as per clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA-
VI.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the husband of
the respondent namely Mahesh Bhuinya (hereinafter referred as the
deceased employee) was working as Piece Rated worker at Sayal
'D' Colliery, Mandu, Ramgarh who died in harness on 22.03.2003.
6. It is further submitted that after death of the deceased employee,
the respondent failed to make an application before the competent
authority either for appointment on compassionate ground or for
granting her monetary compensation.
7. It is also contended that the respondent filed writ petition being
W.P.(S) No. 3280 of 2011 claiming compassionate appointment
which was disposed of on 09.09.2011 with a direction to the
General Manager (P&IR), Central Coalfields Limited (appellant no.3)
to treat the said writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent
as a representation and to decide her claim in accordance with law,
rules, regulations, policies and government enforceable orders
applicable to her.
8. It is further submitted that pursuant to the order dated 09.09.2011
passed in W.P.(S) No. 3280 of 2011, the appellant no.3 issued the
order as contained in letter no. 515 dated 31.01.2012 rejecting the
claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment on the
ground that if such appointment was granted after more than eight
years since the date of death of the deceased employee, the main
2025:JHHC:33605-DB
object and purpose of compassionate appointment i.e., to give
immediate financial relief to the distressed family members would
be defeated.
9. Thereafter the respondent filed representation dated 25.07.2014
before the Project Officer, Sayal-'D' Colliery for grant of monetary
compensation which was rejected by the Senior Manager
(Pers./MP), CCL vide letter no. 1860 dated 05.06.2015 stating that
the monetary compensation had to be offered in lieu of
compassionate appointment and since the same was already
rejected vide reasoned order dated 31.01.2012, the management
was unable to proceed further towards sanctioning monetary
compensation to the respondent at a subsequent stage.
10. The respondent then filed an application before the Director
(Personnel), CCL Headquarter, Darbhanga House, Ranchi on
01.10.2019 for reconsideration of the order passed by the
concerned authority rejecting her request to grant monetary
compensation under the National Coal Wage Agreement, however,
the said application was also rejected by the General Manager
(Personnel), Redressal Cell, CCL, Darbhanga, House, Ranchi vide
letter no. 964 dated 16/23.11.2020.
11. Subsequently, the respondent filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.
3169 of 2020 for issuance of direction upon the appellants to pay
monetary compensation to her since 22.03.2003 with statutory
interest. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single
Judge vide impugned order dated 26.04.2024 directing the
2025:JHHC:33605-DB
appellant-CCL to pay monetary compensation to the respondent as
per Clause 9.5.0 of the N.C.W.A.-VI.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the
materials available on record.
13. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is
that the purpose for grant of compassionate appointment or
monetary compensation to the dependent of the deceased
employee is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family
members and, therefore, the respondent is not entitled for grant of
monetary compensation after an inordinate delay.
14. It is an admitted fact that the husband of the respondent was a
Piece Rated Worker in Sayal 'D' Colliery, Mandu, Ramgarh who died
in harness on 22.03.2003. Thus, the short question falls for
consideration of this court is as to whether the respondent is
entitled to be paid monetary compensation on account of death of
her husband and if so, from which date?
15. Before delving into the merit of the contention of the appellants, it
would be appropriate to refer a judgment rendered by this court in
the case of the Central Coalfields Limited & Others Vs. Sunita
Devi reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3483, the relevant
paragraphs of which are quoted hereunder:
"23. On conjoint consideration of the provisions of NCWA-VI as
well as the judgments cited by the learned counsels for the
parties it is held that when an application for compassionate
appointment is made by a female dependent within the
prescribed period for filing of the same and the said application
is rejected, such female dependent will be entitled to get
monetary compensation from the date of death of the
employee. However, when the application for compassionate
2025:JHHC:33605-DB
appointment is made by a female dependent after the
stipulated period of six months but not after inordinate delay
and her claim for compassionate appointment is rejected, then
she will be entitled to get monetary compensation from the
date of her application submitted for compassionate
appointment.
24. In the case in hand, admittedly the respondent was below
45 years of age at the time of death of her husband and as
such she had two options i.e., either to apply for compassionate
appointment or to seek monetary compensation. The
respondent had chosen to claim for compassionate
appointment which was rejected by the Dy. Chief Personnel
Manager, Dhori Area, CCL, Bokaro vide order dated
26/27.03.2002 on the ground that the same was not filed
within the prescribed period of six months from the date of
death of her husband. At the time of rejection of the
representation of the respondent, the appellants did not offer
her monetary compensation. We are of the view that since the
claim of the respondent for appointment on compassionate
ground was rejected on the ground of delay in submitting such
application, she was entitled to be paid the monetary
compensation and as a model employer, the appellants should
have offered monetary compensation to her, however, they
failed to do so. The respondent having filed the application
belatedly was neither granted compassionate appointment nor
any monetary compensation to which she was entitled in terms
of the provisions of NCWA-VI.
25. Thus, as per the entire scheme of the NCWA-VI, we are of
the view that the respondent cannot be given benefit for the
delay on her part in making the application for compassionate
appointment and at the same time the appellants also cannot
be allowed to take benefit for their own latches in not offering
the monetary compensation to the respondent while rejecting
her claim for compassionate appointment.
26. For the reasons as discussed hereinabove, the respondent
is entitled to be paid the monetary compensation from the date
she had filed application seeking compassionate appointment
i.e., with effect from 15.10.1998."
2025:JHHC:33605-DB
16. Thus, this court in the aforesaid case has already held that if the
application for compassionate appointment is made by a female
dependent after the stipulated period and her claim for
compassionate appointment is rejected on the ground of delay in
submitting the application, she is entitled to get monetary
compensation from the date of her application seeking
compassionate appointment. It has further been held that when the
application for compassionate appointment made by dependent of
a deceased employee is rejected by the competent authorities on
account of delay in making such application, they being model
employers should offer her monetary compensation.
17. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 26.04.2014
passed in W.P.(S) No. 3169 of 2020 has rightly directed the
appellants to pay monetary compensation to the respondent,
however in the said order it has not been mentioned as to from
which date the same would be payable.
18. In the case in hand, the claim of the appellants is that the
respondent had never filed any representation for compassionate
appointment and she raised the claim for compassionate
appointment for the first time by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S)
No.3280 of 2011 wherein vide order dated 09.09.2011, the learned
Single Judge on the request of the learned counsel for the writ-
petitioner, directed the appellants to treat the said writ petition as
representation and to decide her claim.
19. Thereafter in compliance of the said order, the writ petition of the
respondent was treated as representation and her claim with regard
2025:JHHC:33605-DB
to compassionate appointment was rejected by the appellant no.3
vide letter no. 515 dated 31.01.2012. Despite rejecting the claim of
the respondent, the said authority failed to offer monetary
compensation to her. Moreover, though subsequently the
respondent also filed a separate representation before the Project
Officer, Sayal-D Colliery on 25.07.2014 seeking monetary
compensation, however the said authority did not grant monetary
compensation to her.
20. Under the said factual backdrop, we are of the view that the
appellant no.3 while rejecting the respondent's claim for
compassionate appointment was duty bound to offer her monetary
compensation which he failed to do. As such, the respondent is
entitled to get monetary compensation with effect from 31.01.2012
i.e., the date when her application for compassionate appointment
was rejected by the appellant no.3.
21. The impugned order dated 26.04.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3169
of 2020 is modified to the above extent.
22. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
10th November, 2025
Rohit/
AFR
