Central Coalfields Ltd vs Kuni Devi
2026 Latest Caselaw 2676 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Central Coalfields Ltd vs Kuni Devi on 6 April, 2026

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                              ( 2026:JHHC:9505-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      L.P.A. No. 629 of 2025
1.     Central Coalfields Ltd., through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
       having its Office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S.
       Kotwali, District, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2.     The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Ltd., having its Office at
       Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District,
       Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3.     The General Manager (MP&IR), Central Coalfields Ltd., having its Office at
       Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District,
       Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4.     The General Manager, Barka Sayal Area, Central Coalfields Ltd., having its
       Office at Barka Sayal, P.O. Sayal-"D", P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh,
       Jharkhand.
5.     The Staff Officer (Personnel), Barka Sayal Area, Central Coalfields Ltd.,
       having its Office at Barka Sayal, P.O. Sayal-"D", P.S. Patratu, District
       Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
6.     The Project Officer, Urimari Project, Central Coalfields Ltd., Office at
       Urimari, P.O. & P.S. Urimari, District Hazaribag, Jharkhand.
                                                  ....       .... Appellants
                                  Versus
Kuni Devi, aged about 71 years, wife of Late Chamtu Munda, resident of At
Raligarha, MPI Dhowra, P.O. Raligarha, P.S. Giddi-'A', District Ramgarh,
Jharkhand.                                                 ... ... Respondents
                           ------

CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

------

 For the Appellants        :      Mr Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
 For the Respondents       :      Mr. Uday Prakash, Advocate
                           -----
02 /Dated: 06.04.2026

1.     Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. I.A. No. 13175 of 2025 seeks condonation of the delay of 874 days in filing

the Letters Patent Appeal. Though the delay appears to be inordinate, the

explanation offered can, in the facts of the present case, constitute sufficient

cause.

3. After the learned Single Judge passed the order dated 28.02.2023, the

appellants, on legal advice, filed Civil Review No. 125 of 2024. This was

dismissed on 07.03.2025. Thereafter, this Letters Patent Appeal was filed.

( 2026:JHHC:9505-DB )

4. Mr Sinha submitted that the time spent in prosecuting the review petition is

required to be excluded. Even without excluding this period, we think that

since the appellants were pursuing the review petition bona fidely, there is

sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of

limitation.

5. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and this I.A. is disposed of.

6. At the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties,

this Letters Patent Appeal was taken up for consideration, now that we have

condoned the delay in filing of the same.

7. Mr Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that in this case, the

appellants' employee and the husband of the respondent (original petitioner)

died on 01.09.2003. An application dated 19.01.2004 was made by the

widow seeking compassionate employment for her son. No decision was

taken on this application and therefore, the widow by her application dated

30th October, 2019 sought for grant of monetary compensation under the

prevailing of National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA). As such, Mr Sinha

submitted that the benefit under the NCWA could have been granted only

from 30.10.2019. He submitted that there was no reason to award any

interest, as has been awarded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned

order.

8. Mr Uday Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent (original petitioner)

submitted that the issue raised in this appeal is covered inter-alia by the

decision of this Court in Gangia Devi Vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. &

Others, [2020 SCC OnLine Jhar 1133] and The Central Coalfields

Limited & Ors. Vs. Sunita Devi, decided in L.P.A. No. 42 of 2025 on

10.10.2025. He submitted that the original application was made well within

( 2026:JHHC:9505-DB ) the prescribed limitation period and if, for any reason, the appellants were

of the view that the respondent's son was not entitled to compassionate

appointment, then, under NCWA, they should have awarded the monetary

compensation to the respondent. He also pointed out to the inaction on the

various applications made by the respondent-widow and submitted that there

was no error whatsoever in awarding interest at the rate of 5% per annum on

the amount payable to the respondent from the death of her husband.

9. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.

10. In this case, the respondent's husband died on 01.09.2003. Within the

prescribed limitation period, the respondent, by her application dated

19.01.2004, sought the benefit of a compassionate appointment for her son,

possibly because she was at that time overage and, therefore, disentitled to

a compassionate appointment. There was a considerable delay in deciding

the above application dated 19.01.2004.

11. In the meantime, the respondent widow, by her application dated 30th

October 2019, applied to the appellants for monetary compensation under

the NCWA, in case the appellants were not inclined to consider the request

for compassionate appointment of her son. Even this application was not

attended to promptly.

12. This compelled the respondent to file a petition, W.P.(S) No. 7307 of 2019,

before this Court, which was disposed of on 24.06.2020, with a direction to

consider the representation and pass an appropriate reasoned order or

monetary benefit, as requested. The respondent's application for monetary

compensation under the NCWA was rejected on 23.02.2021, following a

significant delay.

( 2026:JHHC:9505-DB )

13. The rejection order dated 23.02.2021 was challenged by the respondent

widow in W.P.(S) No. 2774 of 2021. By order dated 28.02.2023, this

petition was allowed, and directions were issued for payment of monetary

compensation for the death of the respondent's husband, i.e., on 01.09.2003,

together with interest at the rate of 5% per annum. Such a direction, in our

judgment, is quite consistent with the law laid down in Sunita Devi (supra).

14. In the case of Sunita Devi (supra), this Court has made the following

observations in paragraphs-23, 24 and 25, which read as follows: -

"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 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

( 2026:JHHC:9505-DB ) 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."

15. By following the reasoning in Sunita Devi (supra) and Gangia Devi

(supra), we are of the opinion that there is no error whatsoever in granting

the respondent compensation from the date of death of her husband.

16. Admittedly, the respondent applied for benefits under the compensation

scheme well within the prescribed limitation period. She did not apply for

any appointment herself because she was overage but claimed an

appointment for her son. Again, this was well within the prescribed

limitation period. For no good reason, the consideration of this application

was delayed, forcing the respondent to approach this Court.

17. In the meantime, the respondent had applied for monetary compensation

under the NCWA, to which she was clearly entitled. Considering the above-

referred peculiar facts, it would not be correct to say that the respondent's

application was delayed or institution beyond the prescribed period of

limitation.

( 2026:JHHC:9505-DB )

18. As was observed in Sunita Devi (Supra), if the appellants found no merit in

the claim for compassionate appointment but that she was eligible for

monetary compensation, then it was their duty to offer monetary

compensation to the respondent. They failed to do so, forcing the respondent

to institute proceedings before this Court and to barely survive without either

alternate employment for her son or monetary compensation for herself.

19. In this case, little significance can be attached to the fact that the respondent

applied for her son's compassionate appointment rather than her own.

Clearly, the respondent was a female applicant who submitted the

application well within the time limit. Therefore, following the reasoning in

the above decisions, the appellant should have at least awarded monetary

compensation to the respondent from the date of her husband's death.

20. Accordingly, we are satisfied that there is no error in awarding the

respondent the monetary compensation effective from her husband's death,

i.e. 01.09.2003. Besides, considering the delay in disposal of the

respondent's applications and the rather unfair approach adopted by the

Respondents in this particular case, the learned single Judge was justified in

awarding interest at the rate of 5% per annum.

21. For all the above reasons, we dismiss this LPA without costs. Pending I.As.,

if any, are also disposed of.

22. The time for compliance, however, is extended up to 14 May 2026, with the

hope that the respondent will not be compelled to file any further

proceedings in this Court for disobedience or delay.

23. Considering the plight of the widow, who has been deprived of the monetary

compensation she was entitled to after the death of her husband on

01.09.2003, a compliance report must be filed by the Appellant in this Court

( 2026:JHHC:9505-DB ) on or before 15 May 2026 with notice to the learned counsel for the

Respondent-widow.

24. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order.

(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) April 06, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr.

NAFR Uploaded on 09.04.2026