Jharkhand High Court

The Central Coalfields Limited Through ... vs Parbati Devi on 15 October, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                    2025:JHHC:32036-DB



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                       L.P.A. No. 632 of 2024

                                 ---

     1. The Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
        Managing Director, Ranchi
     2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi
     3. The General Manager (P & IR), Central Coalfields Limited,
        Ranchi
     4. The Chief Personal Manager, Barka Sayal Area of M/s. Central
        Coalfields Limited, P.O. & P.S.- Sayal, District- Ramgarh
     5. The Project Officer, Urimari UG Project, Barka Sayal Area of
        M/s. Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. & P.S.- Urimari, District-
        Ramgarh
     6. The Personnel Manager, Urimari UG Project, Barka Sayal Area of
        M/s. Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. & P.S.- Urimari, District-
        Ramgarh
                                           ...       ...       Appellants
                                      Versus
        Parbati Devi, wife of Late Lodga Manjhi, resident of Pahari
        Urimari Basti, P.O.- Gosain Balia, P.S.- Barkagaon, District-
        Hazaribag                          ....      ...       Respondent
        CORAM:           HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                                  ---
        For the Appellants          : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
                                      Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
        For the Respondent          :
                                  ---

Order No. 04                                    Date: 15.10.2025
Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. :

The present interlocutory application has been filed under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 68 days

in filing the present appeal.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and on being

satisfied with the reasons stated in the present interlocutory

application, the said delay in filing the present appeal is hereby

condoned.

3. I.A. No. 10914 of 2025 is accordingly disposed of.

2025:JHHC:32036-DB

4. The present appeal has been preferred against the order

dated 27.08.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7260 of 2023 whereby prayer

of the writ petitioner/respondent herein has been allowed by

directing the respondents/appellants to pay her entire monetary

compensation and arrear thereof with effect from 13.04.1998 i.e., the

date of her application filed for compassionate appointment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the husband

of the respondent namely Lodga Manjhi, who was working as 'Timber

Helper' in Urimari Underground Project under Barka Sayal Area, died

in harness on 20.10.1997. The respondent being the widow of the

deceased employee submitted an application on 13.04.1998 seeking

compassionate appointment before the appellant no. 6-the Personal

Manager, Urimari UG Project, Barka Sayal Area, CCL which was

rejected vide order as contained in letter dated 16/17.01.2002.

6. Thereafter, she made an application for monetary

compensation after a huge delay of 20 years i.e. on 07.04.2022 which

remained pending. Aggrieved with the said situation, the respondent

filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2764 of 2022 praying for grant

of monetary compensation under Clause 9.5.0 of the National Coal

Wage Agreement which was disposed of vide order dated 23.08.2022

with a direction to the appellants to consider her case and to pass a

speaking and reasoned order on her pending representation after

providing her ample opportunity of hearing.

7. It is further submitted that pursuant to the order dated

23.08.2022, the respondent filed a representation before the

Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi on

2025:JHHC:32036-DB

23.09.2022 which was decided by the appellant no. 3- the General

Manager (P & IR), CCL, Ranchi vide reasoned order dated 17.07.2023

whereby the petitioner's claim of monetary compensation was

allowed w.e.f. the first day of the month following the month in which

she had submitted her application till the date of completion of 60

years/death, whichever is earlier.

8. Aggrieved with the said reasoned order, the respondent filed

writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 7260 of 2023 claiming monetary

compensation with effect from 13.04.1998 i.e., the date on which she

had filed her application seeking compassionate appointment. The

said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide

impugned order dated 27.08.2024 granting monetary compensation

to the respondent w.e.f. 13.04.1998.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned

Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the respondent's

application seeking compassionate appointment was rejected vide

order as contained in letter dated 16/17.01.2002 and she approached

the appellants for monetary compensation after huge delay of more

than 20 years from the said date.

10. It is further argued that the purpose and objective of

compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial relief to

the dependent family members. However, the appellants took a

lenient view and allowed the monetary compensation to the

respondent from the first day of the month falling next to the month

of her representation dated 07.04.2022.

11. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the

materials available on record.

2025:JHHC:32036-DB

12. We have gone through a recent judgment rendered by this

Court in an identical matter i.e., The Central Coalfields Limited &

Others Vs. Sunita Devi (L.P.A No. 42 of 2025) wherein this

Court had allowed the monetary compensation to the widow of the

deceased from the date she had filed application seeking

compassionate appointment by observing as under: -

"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

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

2025:JHHC:32036-DB

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."

13. In the aforesaid case, this Court has specifically held that

when the application for compassionate 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, she will be entitled to get monetary compensation from

2025:JHHC:32036-DB

the date of her application seeking compassionate appointment.

14. In the present case, on perusal of the record, it is evident that

the respondent had filed application seeking compassionate

appointment on 13.04.1998 and as such she was entitled to get

monetary compensation with effect from the said date and not from

the date she had made representation for monetary compensation.