Authority: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Order Date: 10.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Manju Devi (wife) and Manoj Kumar (son) of the late Haripat Saw, former permanent employee (Trammer) of Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) at Saunda Colliery. Respondents – CCL represented by its Chairman‑MD, Director Personnel, Senior Manager (P & IR), General Manager (IR‑L/NEE/MP & R), and Project Officer, Central Saunda Colliery.
  • Background: Haripat Saw died on 10.08.2009. Under CCL’s compassionate appointment policy, an application could be filed within one year (later extended to 1½ years by Circular dated 03.11.2009). The wife filed a representation on 11.06.2011, i.e., 22 months after death, exceeding the permissible period by four months.
  • Procedural History:
  • 12.12.2012 – CCL rejected the application citing delay.
  • W.P. (S) No. 3738/2016 – Petitioners obtained quash of the 2012 order; CCL directed reconsideration within two months (order dated 09.12.2016).
  • L.P.A. No. 260/2017 – CCL disposed on 04.10.2017, stating further consideration would follow law, rules, and the limitation period.
  • 20.11.2017 – CCL issued a speaking order rejecting the compassionate appointment, citing:
  • Application filed 22 months after death, beyond the 1½‑year limit.
  • The son, Manoj Kumar, was a major at the time of death (date of birth 15.08.1987) contrary to the deceased’s Form PS‑3 which recorded the son as 8 years old on 20.09.2002.
  • No request was made to include the son’s name in the live roster.
  • Approximately eight years had elapsed since the employee’s death, defeating the purpose of immediate financial relief.
  • W.P. (S) No. 2198/2018 – Dismissed on 01.05.2023 on grounds of limitation, incorrect date of birth, and the eight‑year lapse.
  • L.P.A. No. 403/2023 – Dismissed on 22.11.2023, reaffirming the earlier findings.
  • Legal Arguments: Petitioners argued for a lenient view on the limitation period, citing a 2012 judgment (Rohit Kumar v. CCL) where the court had ignored delay and form deficiencies. CCL contended that the circulars fixing the limitation were never challenged and that the son’s age discrepancy rendered his candidature doubtful.
  • Precedents Cited: Several Jharkhand High Court judgments (e.g., Sushil Kumar Bhengra v. UOI, 13.08.2004; LPA No. 731/2004, 19.12.2005) establishing a one‑year limit, later extended to 1½ years, and emphasizing that compassionate appointments cannot be granted after the prescribed period.
  • Supreme Court Guidance: The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s principles on review petitions, emphasizing that review is limited to patent errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appeal.

Final Outcome

  • The review petition (Civil Review No. 06 of 2024) is dismissed. No relief is granted to the petitioners. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also disposed of. The decision upholds CCL’s rejection of the compassionate appointment on the grounds of delay, age discrepancy, and the elapsed time since the employee’s death.

Topics: Compassionate Appointment, Labor Law