Nimai Kumhar Alias Nemai Kumar Vs Union of India

2025:JHHC:33448

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (L) No. 4391 of 2022

Nimai Kumhar @ Nemai Kumar, Age-About 40 years, s/oRaghunandan Kumhar, Village-Rajganj, P.O. + P.S.-Rajganj, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ...... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India

¶7

The Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, having its office at Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, P.O. and P.S. New Delhi, New Delhi-110 001.

¶8

The General Manager, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Barora Area No.1 of M/s BCCL, P.O. Nawagrah, P.S.-Barora, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand-828306.

¶9

The Project Officer, A.A.R.C. Section, AKWMC, Katras Area, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Office of the Project Officer, P.O. Katrasgarh, P.S. Katras, District-Dhanbad, Jharkand-826001. ..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anuj Kr. Trivedi, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Chandra Prakash, CGC Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, A.C. to G.P.-V

¶13

08/Dated:-10.11.2025

¶14

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order as contained in Letter No.1040 dated 11.01.2017 passed by the 4^th respondent; whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground of delay and laches.

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his father namely-Raghunandan Kumhar, was an employee with the respondent-BCCL and was employed as Badli Tyndal and he died while in service on 04.01.2002.

¶17

The specific case of the petitioner is that, immediately

¶18

1

¶19

2025:JHHC:33448

¶20

after the death of his father he filed an application for compassionate appointment on 20.03.2002 i.e., within a period of two months. However, when the appointment was not given, he approached the concerned respondent and filed a representation in the year 2015 and pursuant to that, the impugned order, Annexure-6 was issued; whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the case is more than 14 years old, so there does not seem any convincing ground to take up the matter and accordingly, the impugned order was passed.

¶21

4. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner applied well within time and it is due to the action of the respondent authorities, there was delay and not due to the act of the petitioner.

¶22

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, in reply, submits

¶23

that the respondents have considered the

¶24

application/representation of 2015, as the application of 2002 is not on record and admittedly, the erstwhile employee died on 04.01.2002.

¶25

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, even assuming that the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment well within two months from the date of death of the erstwhile employee who died on 04.01.2002, then also, we are in 2025 and further, as submitted by the petitioner himself, in the year 2015 he filed a representation before the respondent i.e., after about 13

¶26

2

¶27

2025:JHHC:33448

¶28

years from the dater of death of the erstwhile employee.

¶29

One more interesting part in this case is that the impugned order is dated 11.01.2017; whereby the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected, however, this writ application has been filed on 31.08.2022 i.e., more than five years.

¶30

This itself goes to show that the laches is more on the part of the petitioner; rather on the part of respondent even admitting the claim of the petitioner that application for compassionate appointment was made on 20.03.2002.

¶31

7. Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶32

Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Others vs. Parden Oraon reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299 ; after considering each and every aspect of the matter has observed that “ As the object of compassionate appointment is for providing immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee, the Respondent's son is not entitled for compassionate appointment after the passage of a long period of time since his father has gone missing .”

¶33

8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and

¶34

circumstances, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.

¶35

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶36

November 10, 2025 vikas/uploaded 21/11/2025

¶37

3

Nimai Kumhar Alias Nemai Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nimai Kumhar Alias Nemai Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjit Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Deepak Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ganga Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamakhya Narayn Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary Government Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Arjun Prasad Singh Vs Uco Bank

Kiran Bala Vs the State of Jharkhand