When an application for compassionate appointment is rejected, the dependent is entitled to receive monetary compensation effective from the date of the initial application, as the employer is duty-bound to offer such benefits as a model employer and cannot rely on its own delays.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Shankar, J. :

I.A No. 10914 of 2025 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.

L.P.A. No. 632 of 2024

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 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