The Jharkhand High Court has clarified that a female dependent, whose application for compassionate appointment is rejected (even after delay), is entitled to monetary compensation from the date she originally applied for compassionate appointment — and not from the date she later seeks compensation — provided her delay is not inordinate. The Court follows its own recent precedent, providing binding authority for service and labour matters in the coal sector.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/632/2024 of THE CENTRAL COALFIELD LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN – CUM – MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs PARBATI DEVI |
| CNR | JHHC010410372024 |
| Date of Registration | 16-12-2024 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Bench | Division Bench: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Jharkhand High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Jharkhand High Court precedent (Central Coalfields Limited & Others v. Sunita Devi, LPA No. 42 of 2025) |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Labour Law (Compassionate Appointment & Benefits) |
| Questions of Law | Whether monetary compensation under Clause 9.5.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement is to be paid from the date of application for compassionate appointment or from a later date when representation for compensation is made after rejection. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that when a female dependent applies for compassionate appointment (even belatedly but not after inordinate delay), and the application is rejected, monetary compensation must be granted from the date of the original application for compassionate appointment. The delay in subsequently applying for compensation does not deprive her of this entitlement, provided she was eligible and not at fault for non-disclosure by the employer. The Court followed its own recent decision in Central Coalfields Limited & Others v. Sunita Devi, emphasizing the employer’s obligation to offer such compensation proactively at the time of rejection. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Central Coalfields Limited & Others v. Sunita Devi (L.P.A No. 42 of 2025) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court reasoned that the employer, as a model employer, should proactively offer monetary compensation upon rejection of a compassionate appointment request and cannot benefit from its own omission to do so. The Court interpreted the NCWA-VI and related judgments to reach this conclusion. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The respondent’s husband died in harness in 1997. The respondent (widow) applied for compassionate appointment in 1998, which was ultimately rejected in 2002. Only in 2022 did she seek monetary compensation, which was partially allowed by the employer from the date of her 2022 application. The writ court granted her compensation from the original 1998 application date. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in service/labour matters relating to the coal sector |
| Follows | Central Coalfields Limited & Others v. Sunita Devi (L.P.A No. 42 of 2025) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that monetary compensation under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) is payable from the date of the original application for compassionate appointment, not from the date of seeking compensation, even if the representation for compensation is delayed.
- Makes clear that delay in seeking monetary compensation after rejection of compassionate appointment does not bar entitlement if the original application was not made after inordinate delay.
- Stresses the employer’s obligation to proactively offer monetary compensation at the time of rejection of compassionate appointment.
- Can be cited as binding precedent within Jharkhand for similar service/labour benefit disputes.
- Follows and clarifies the law in Central Coalfields Limited & Others v. Sunita Devi (L.P.A No. 42 of 2025).
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Division Bench considered the factual sequence: respondent first applied for compassionate appointment, which was rejected years ago, and only much later sought monetary compensation.
- The appellants argued for limiting compensation only from the date the monetary claim was made.
- The Court analysed the NCWA-VI and relied heavily on its recent, directly analogous ruling in Central Coalfields Limited & Others v. Sunita Devi (L.P.A No. 42 of 2025).
- In Sunita Devi, the Court held that monetary compensation is due from the date of the original (even if late but not inordinately delayed) application for compassionate appointment, not from any subsequent representation for compensation.
- The Court reasoned that the employer, as a model employer, should have proactively offered compensation at the time of rejection — it cannot take advantage of its own failure.
- The Court found the facts to be on all fours with Sunita Devi, and saw no reason to depart from that precedent, dismissing the appeal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants – Central Coalfields Limited etc.):
- The respondent’s application for compassionate appointment was rejected in 2002.
- An application for monetary compensation was made only after a delay of more than 20 years.
- The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the object of compassionate appointment — immediate relief.
- The employer had already taken a lenient view by granting compensation from the month following the 2022 representation.
Respondent:
- Sought monetary compensation under Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA after non-acceptance of compassionate appointment.
- Claimed compensation should be granted from the date of the original application, not from when the later representation was made.
Factual Background
The respondent’s husband, who had worked as a ‘Timber Helper’, died in service in 1997. The respondent (widow) applied for compassionate appointment in April 1998. This application was rejected in January 2002. Two decades later, in April 2022, she applied for monetary compensation, triggering a writ petition when her claim remained pending. The Single Judge directed compensation from the 1998 application date, a decision the employer challenged in this LPA.
Statutory Analysis
- Clause 9.5.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) was interpreted in light of the employer’s obligations to dependents.
- The Court highlighted that monetary compensation is an alternative to compassionate appointment and should be granted from the date of the original application if rejection follows (absent inordinate delay).
- There was no specific reading down or reading in.
- No constitutional provisions were discussed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
The Division Bench delivered a unanimous opinion (no dissent); both Chief Justice and Justice Rajesh Shankar concurred.
Procedural Innovations
- Application for condonation of delay (68 days) in filing the LPA was allowed prior to merit determination.
- No new procedural innovations, guidelines, or changes to evidentiary requirements were established in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment explicitly follows and reaffirms the law laid down in Central Coalfields Limited & Others v. Sunita Devi (L.P.A No. 42 of 2025).