Jharkhand High Court
Savitri Kumari vs Central Coalfield Limited Through Its ... on 9 September, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:28096
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5502 of 2021
----
Savitri Kumari, D/o Late Manwa Devi, W/o Mahesh Turi, R/o Sondiha, P.O.
Chainpur, P.S. Mandu, Dist- Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
... Petitioner
-versus-
1. Central Coalfield Limited through its Chairman Cum Managing Director
Darbhanga House P.O.-G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S.-Kotwali, District - Ranchi.
2. Director Personnel, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, P.O.-
G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S.- Kotwali, District - Ranchi.
3. Project Officer, Kuju Siding, Kuju Area, Central Coalfields Limited, P.O.
Sarubera, P.S. Kuju, District Ramgarh.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jageshwar Mahto, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
----
07/ 09.09.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the respondents.
2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:-
1. For issuance of appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or
orders, direction or directions commanding the concern
Respondents to grant Compassionate Appointment to
Petitioner in place of her mother Late Manwa Devi who
died in harness on 26-05-2012 but till date Respondents
have not issued Appointment Letter to her on the ground
that She is a married daughter of concern employee;
2. For issuance of appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or
orders, direction or directions commanding the concern
Respondents to a Final decision regarding the matter of
grant of Compassionate Appointment to Petitioner in
place of her mother Late Manwa Devi who died in harness
on 26-05-2012 and for that application was filed by the
petitioner in the year 2013 itself.
3. The case of the petitioner is that her mother was working as P/R
(piece rated worker) in Central Coalfields Limited, Kuju siding, District
Ramgarh and died in harness on 26.05.2012. The petitioner was left alone as
her father had died earlier. She was unmarried when her mother died.
Unmarried Status Certificate was issued to the petitioner vide letter No. 68
dated 01.03.2013 by the Block Development Officer. The petitioner
immediately after her mother's death applied for Compassionate Appointment
in the year 2013 and she was recommended by the Director, Personnel in the
month of September 2013. However, one staff of CCL in the year 2016 made
a complaint against the petitioner that she was married. The Project Officer,
CCL requested for enquiry about the marital status of the petitioner because in
2025:JHHC:28096
the Voter Card and Aadhar Card name of husband has been mentioned. The
respondent authorities have not yet issued the appointment letter to the
petitioner on ground of the said enquiry. The petitioner also filed
representations, before the General Manager (P&IR) CCL, Ranchi, Project
Officer, Sarubera Colliery and Staff Officer (P&A) CCL Kujju Area, dated
16.12.2015, 06.11.2017 and 06.09.2021 respectively, requesting to look into
the matter and grant her compassionate appointment but no final decision has
been taken.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts forth his arguments stating
that the petitioner was an unmarried daughter at the time of death of her
mother and when she filed the application for compassionate appointment.
The counsel submits that the Director, personnel had recommended the
petitioner for compassionate appointment in the year 2013. The counsel
further submits that the petitioner has not yet been given appointment only on
ground of ongoing enquiry.
6. Learned counsel representing the respondents state that there
are contradictions in the documents submitted by State Authority and the
documents submitted by the committee. Letter No. 464 dated 25.03.2015 of
Anchal Adhikari, Mandu mentions that the petitioner was unmarried whereas,
the committee report states that statement of complainant were supported by
the State Government Documents. Further, a fresh verification report was
advised to be submitted but till date no report has been received from the
State Authority. The counsel further submits that upon marriage of the
petitioner in 28.06.2017, she was requested to submit her Aadhar Card
wherein her husband's name appears but till date she has not submitted the
same.
7. After hearing the counsel for the parties at length and perusal of
the records, I find that the parents of the petitioner passed away. Thereafter,
the petitioner got married in the year 2017. So after the death of her parents,
she is now a dependent, if at all, upon her husband and hence cannot be
granted the claim for compassionate appointment. Further, more than 10
years have passed since the death of the petitioner's mother. Thus, no
compassion remains. It must be noted that the sole object of giving
compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased to tide
over the sudden financial crisis in the family of the employee. After the death
of the employee and her husband, there is only now the daughter, who is also
2025:JHHC:28096
married. The marriage is after the death of her parents. Now, if appointment is
granted, the same will be "another mode of appointment", which in fact is not.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding a similar matter in the
case of State of Maharashtra v. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1327, emphasized that a married daughter cannot be said to be
dependent on her deceased mother and therefore, she is not entitled to
appointment on compassionate ground. Further, the Hon'ble Court has held
as under:
"12. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in
the aforesaid decisions, compassionate
appointment is an exception to the general rule of
appointment in the public services and is in favour
of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness
and leaving his family in penury and without any
means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of
pure humanitarian consideration taking into
consideration the fact that unless some source of
livelihood is provided, the family would not be able
to make both ends meet, a provision is made in
the rules to provide gainful employment to one of
the dependants of the deceased who may be
eligible for such employment. The whole object of
granting compassionate employment is, thus, to
enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis.
The object is not to give such family a post much
less a post held by the deceased.
13. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on
hand, to appoint the respondent now on
compassionate ground shall be contrary to the
object and purpose of appointment on
compassionate ground. The respondent cannot be
said to be dependent on the deceased employee,
i.e., her mother. Even otherwise, she shall not be
entitled to appointment on compassionate ground
after a number of years from the death of the
deceased employee."
8. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
facts of the case, I find no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition, is
accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Ranchi
Dated 9th September, 2025
Kumar/Cp-02
