Dismissed¶34

Central Coal Fields Limited through Its Chairman-Cum- Managing Director v. Budhan Oraon

Jharkhand HC17 Dec 2025LPA/155/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal; person aggrieved; remand for fresh enquiry; capricious, non-speaking and cryptic order; natural justice; Central Coalfields Limited; W.P.(S) No. 1469 of 2021; L.P.A. No. 155 of 2025; delay condonation; High Court of Jharkhand; Division Bench.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the L.P.A. is dismissed as not maintainable, with the clarification that the merits were not examined and the appellants remain free to decide petitioner No. 2's case for compassionate appointment pursuant to the writ Court's remand, uninfluenced by any observation in this judgment. ¶34

Central Coal Fields Limited through Its Chairman-Cum- Managing Director Vs Budhan Oraon — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal filed by the appellants (the writ respondents) is maintainable, given that the learned writ Court recorded no finding on the merits of petitioner No. 2's claim for compassionate appointment and the appellants cannot be termed parties aggrieved. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

The learned writ Court's order dated 19.11.2024 contains no observation, much less findings, on the merits of petitioner No. 2's claim; therefore the appellants cannot be termed parties aggrieved.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

In any event, the order dated 17.12.2015 denying compassionate appointment cannot be sustained, being capricious, non-speaking and cryptic, as rightly observed by the learned writ Court.

¶26

Key takeaways

Since the appellants are not parties aggrieved, the appeal at their instance is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶34
Clarification: this Court has not delved into the merits of the case, and it remains open to the appellants to decide petitioner No. 2's case without being influenced by any observation made in this judgment.ratio¶34
The delay of 50 days in filing the appeal is condoned and I.A. No. 1719 of 2025 stands disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal dismissed as not maintainable — appellants (Central Coalfields Limited officials, writ respondents in W.P.(S) No. 1469 of 2021) challenged the writ Court's order dated 19.11.2024 quashing their order dated 17.12.2015 denying compassionate appointment to petitioner No. 2 as capricious, non-speaking and cryptic and remitting the matter for reconsideration after enquiry. Held: the writ Court's order recorded no observation or finding on the merits of petitioner No. 2's claim; the appellants therefore cannot be termed parties aggrieved and the appeal at their instance is not maintainable. The Division Bench clarified that it had not delved into the merits, leaving the appellants free to decide petitioner No. 2's case without being influenced by any observation herein. Delay of 50 days in filing the appeal condoned (I.A. No. 1719 of 2025). Coram: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. and Rajesh Shankar, J.

¶1

2025:JHHC:37915-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

L.P.A. No. 155 of 2025

¶4

Central Coal Fields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, At Darbhaga House, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi.

¶5

Director (Personnel), Central Coal Fields Limited, At-Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi. 3. General Manager, (P & IR), Central Coalfields Limited, AtDarbhanga House, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi.

¶6

Chief Manager (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, AtDarbhanga House, P.O. & P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi.

¶7

The General Manager, Central Coal Fields Limited, Kathara Area, At & P.O.- Kathara, P.S.-Kathara, Dist.-Bokaro, Jharkhand.

¶8

The Project Officer, Govindpur Project, Central Coal Fields Limited, At Govindpur, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro Thermal, Dist.-Bokaro, Jharkhand

¶9

The Senior Manager (Personnel), Govindpur Project, Central Coal Fields Limited, At-Govindpur, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro Thermal, Dist.-Bokaro, Jharkhand. … … … Respondents/Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Budhan Oraon, aged about 60 years, Son of Sri Manager Oraon, Resident of Vill-Khurda Khurd, P.O.-Semra, P.S.-Chainpur, Dist.Palamau, Jharkhand.

¶12

...Writ Petitioner No. 1/Respondent No. 1 2. Jitendra Minj, aged about 35 years, Son of Sri Budhan Oraon, Resident of Vill Khurda Khurd, P.O.-Semra, P.S.-Chainpur, Dist.Palamau, Jharkhand.

¶13

...Writ Petitioner No. 2/Respondent No. 2 3. Kulpatia Devi, aged about 55 years, Son of Sri Budhan Oraon, Resident of Vill Khurda Khurd, P.O.-Semra, P.S.-Chainpur, Dist.Palamau, Jharkhand.

¶14

... Writ Petitioner No. 3/Respondent No. 3

¶15

--------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶16

¶17

For the Appellants: Mr. Abhishek Choudhary, Advocate

¶18

--------- 02/Dated: 17.12.2025

¶19

I.A. No. 1719 of 2025

¶20

For the reasons stated in the Interlocutory Application, which is duly supported by the affidavit filed by the officer of the appellants, we find sufficient cause to condone the delay of 50 days that has crept up in filing the Appeal.

¶21

Accordingly, the aforesaid delay is condoned. This Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

¶22

-1-

¶23

2025:JHHC:37915-DB

¶24

L.P.A. No. 155 of 2025

¶25

The parties shall be referred to as they were before the learned writ Court.

¶26

We really wonder why the appellants have filed the instant appeal given the fact that the learned writ Court after finding the order denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner dated 17.12.2015 being capricious, non-speaking and cryptic, quashed and set aside the same and remanded the matter back to reconsider the case of petitioner No. 2 for compassionate appointment after holding the enquiry with regard to status of petitioner No. 2. The respondents were further directed to appoint an appropriate officer to hold an enquiry. They were also at liberty to get the matter examined through police, specialized agency, if so required, with a caveat that the petitioners would be provided ample opportunity of hearing to place all the relevant materials and facts. There is no observation much less findings recorded by the learned writ Court on the merits of the claim of petitioner No. 2 and therefore, the appellants cannot be termed to be party aggrieved. Even otherwise, the impugned order dated 17.12.2015 cannot under any such circumstances be sustained as rightly been observed by the learned writ Court that the same is capricious, non-speaking and cryptic, which is clearly evident from perusal of order dated 19.11.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No.1469 of 2021, which reads as under:

¶27

“ 5. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that this Court cannot sit as Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities, but at the same time if it transpires that a decision has been arrived on the basis of irrelevant material and the relevant material has not been considered, the court is bound to interfere in the order. The entire process appears to have been taken without adhering to the cardinal principle of natural justice

¶28

-2-

¶29

2025:JHHC:37915-DB

¶30

6. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order dated 17.12.2015 being capricious, non-speaking and cryptic is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶31

7. The matter is remitted back to reconsider the case of the petitioner No. 2 for compassionate appointment after holding the enquiry with regard to status of petitioner No. 2. Respondents are further directed to appoint an appropriate officer to hold an enquiry. Petitioners shall be provided ample opportunity of hearing to place all the relevant materials and facts. Respondents are also at liberty to get the matter examined through police specialized agency, if so required, process of consideration shall be completed within a period of four weeks. Let the appropriate order be passed thereafter. Needless to say, if the claim of the petitioner No. 2 is found to be genuine, consider the same in accordance with law.

¶32

8. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶33

9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed.”

¶34

Once the appellants cannot be held to be party aggrieved, obviously the appeal at its instance is not maintainable and the same is accordingly, dismissed. However, before parting it is made clear that we have not at all delved into the merits of the case and therefore, it is open to the appellants to decide the case of petitioner No. 2 without being influenced by any observation made herein.

¶35