IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.3621 of 2022 ------

Sunita Murmu, wife of Sugda Kisku, resident of Bara Bhorai, P.O.

Lohandiya Bazar, P.S. Lalmatiya, District Godda, Jharkhand.

… … Petitioner Versus

1. The Chief General Manager, Eastern Coalfields Limited, having its Head Office Sanctoria, P.O. Disherghar, P.S. Ranigarh, District Burdwan (W.B.).

2. The Deputy General Manager, Rajmahal Mining Project Eastern Coalfields Limited, Lalmatiya, P.O. & P.S. Lalmatiya, District Godda.

3. The Manager Personnel, Rajmahal Mining Project Eastern Coalfields Limited, Lalmatiya, P.O. & P.S. Lalmatiya, District Godda.

4. Nodal Officer, Rajmahal Mining Project Eastern Coalfields Limited, Lalmatiya, P.O. & P.S. Lalmatiya, District Godda.

… … Respondents ------

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kr. Jha, Advocate Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate ------

13/ 21.01.2026 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner claims compassionate appointment as her husband was employed in the Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL), who died in harness on 30.04.2006.

3. Learned counsel representing the Eastern Coalfields Limited, submits that in the nomination form, the deceased did not nominate anyone to receive the death benefits. He further submits that so far as payment of death-cum-retiral dues is concerned, the same have been disbursed to Pakloo Hansda in terms of the Succession Certificate. He submits that in a Succession Case filed for grant of Succession Certificate, Succession Certificate was granted in favour of Pakloo Hansda. The petitioner was also a party in the said proceeding but she did not contest the same. He lastly submits that nearly twenty years have lapsed from the date of death of husband of this petitioner and since this petitioner and the family have survived, there is no necessity to grant compassionate appointment to this petitioner.

4. After going through the entire writ petition and the annexures of the petition, I find that the instant writ petition relates to grant of compassionate appointment to this petitioner in place of her husband, who died in harness on 30.04.2006. Compassionate appointment is not a mode of securing employment. The same is an exception to the Constitutional provision. The basic purpose of compassionate appointment is to grant immediate financial relief to the family members of the deceased employee. The purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship due to the sudden death of the bread winner of the family. It is the immediate financial crisis which needs to be addressed by giving compassionate appointment. Due to passage of time, the family overcomes the immediate financial crisis thus, the need of compassionate appointment does not remain after lapse of a considerable period.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219, at para-32 and 57, held as hereunder:-

“32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge:

i. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.

ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased