Niraj Kumar vs M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

I.A. No.348 of 2026 seeks condonation of delay of 40 days in instituting the accompanying appeal.

We have perused the averments in the I.A., and we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown. Even otherwise, the delay is not inordinate.

The delay is condoned, and I.A. No.348 of 2026 is disposed of.

After condoning the delay, with consent, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the appeal, which challenges the learned single Judge’s order dated 8^th July, 2025, dismissing the appellant’s W.P.(S) No.2748 of 2025.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant’s claim and the objections to the consideration of the 7^th respondent’s application for compassionate appointment have not at all been considered by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. He submits that without consideration of such objections and claim, the appellant’s case could not have been rejected.

The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order on the basis of the reasoning reflected therein.

We have considered the rival contentions, and we are satisfied that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order by exercising our appellate jurisdiction.

The record shows that the appellant’s claim was rejected because the claim of his stepmother was under active consideration. Paragraph no.4 of the impugned order shows that the appellant’s counsel admitted that the spouse, i.e., the 7^th respondent herein, who had claimed compassionate appointment, was the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee.

The learned single Judge also referred to the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), under which the wife's claim is considered above that of other family members.

The learned counsel for respondents nos. 1 to 5, on instructions, stated that the claim of the 7^th respondent was considered and that a letter of appointment was issued to her on 4^th September, 2026. He produced the copy of such letter of appointment dated 4^th September, 2026 on record.

Thus, the respondents' approach to the appointment of the 7^th respondent was consistent with the applicable NCWA. There was no question of considering the appellant's case for compassionate appointment, as the 7^th respondent's claim, i.e., the legitimate wife’s claim, was under active consideration and was ultimately favourably considered.

The contention that the appellant’s objections or his claim was not considered is not correct. The 7^th respondent had a higher claim to compassionate appointment under the NCWA, and once that claim was found acceptable, there was no question of granting any compassionate appointment to the appellant.

Insofar as the appellant's claims for other monetary benefits are concerned, the impugned order states that the respondent will pay the entire monetary benefits in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations to the dependents entitled to them.

For all the above reasons, we are satisfied that there is no error in the impugned order which warrants any interference in this appeal.

The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed without any order for costs.