BANTI KUMAR BHATT vs BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, Advocate - AMIT KUMAR DAS, ,ATUL RAI,PRATYUSH,MANISH KUMAR,ANOOP KR MEHTA,AMIT KUMAR SINHA — LPA/613/2025

Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010403352024

Filing Number

LPA/12575/2024

Filing Date

27-Nov-2024

Registration No

LPA/613/2025

Registration Date

19-Sep-2025

Judge

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar

Coram

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

CIVIL PROCEDURE & LIMITATION ( 113 )

Sub-Category

Clause 10 Of Letters Patent ( 24 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BANTI KUMAR BHATT

    Adv. AJAY KUMAR SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, Advocate - AMIT KUMAR DAS, ,ATUL RAI,PRATYUSH,MANISH KUMAR,ANOOP KR MEHTA,AMIT KUMAR SINHA

  2. 2.GENERAL MANAGER, WESTERN JHARIA AREA OF M/S BCCL,

  3. 3.PROJECT OFFICER, LOHAPATI COLLIERY OF M/S BCCL,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice,hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh ShankarView PDF

  3. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice,hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh ShankarView PDF

    Case Summary: LPA 613/2025 Decision: The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the lower court's rejection of his compassionate appointment claim with Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Key Reasoning: The court held that although the appellant's father was legally declared dead by civil court decree in December 2017, he had already been dismissed from employment on 22nd April 2013—well before the seven-year period establishing presumption of death. The tripartite agreement for compassionate employment does not extend benefits to dependents of dismissed employees who die post-dismissal, making the appellant ineligible for the sought appointment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 04-May-2026

    Orders

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar

  5. 06-Apr-2026

    Orders

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar

  6. 12-Feb-2026

    Orders

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar

  7. 08-Jan-2026

    Orders

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar

  8. 05-Jan-2026

    Orders

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar

  9. 10-Dec-2025

    Orders

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar

  10. 12-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),HON'BLE Mr.justice Rajesh ShankarView PDF

  11. 12-Nov-2025

    Orders

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar

  12. 14-Oct-2025

    Orders(with defect)

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice (M.s. Ramachandra Rao) , Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar

  13. 10-Jun-2025

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice (M.s. Ramachandra Rao),hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh ShankarView PDF

  14. 19-Dec-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  15. 27-Nov-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. LPA/613/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: LPA 613/2025 Decision: The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the lower court's rejection of his compassionate appointment claim with Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Key Reasoning: The court held that although the appellant's father was legally declared dead by civil court decree in December 2017, he had already been dismissed from employment on 22nd April 2013—well before the seven-year period establishing presumption of death. The tripartite agreement for compassionate employment does not extend benefits to dependents of dismissed employees who die post-dismissal, making the appellant ineligible for the sought appointment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case