Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 49 (CAL)

Damodar Vally Corporation v. Uttam Goswami

2002-01-29

Ashok Kumar Mathur, Subhro Kamal Mukherjee

body2002
JUDGMENT : - Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated November 29, 1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court. The learned Single Judge by the order impugned allowed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (writ petition in short) holding that there could not be any justification on the part of the authorities to deny the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground inasmuch as his father died in harness. 2. Gopinath Goswami, since deceased, was working at Foreman (E) Bermo Coal Mines, a unit of Damodar Valley Corporation (D. V .C. in short). The said Gopinath Goswami died on December 7,1989 and the writ petitioner is one of his sons. The writ petitioner moved the present writ petition claiming that the writ petitioner being one of the dependent of the deceased employee, who died while in service, was entitled to an appointment in a suitable post on compassionate ground. 3. D. V. C. contended that the employees of the Bermo Coal Mines were covered under the National Coal Wages Agreement (N.C.W.A. in short). D.V.C. implemented the recommendations of N.C.W.A.-I, II and III for Bermo Mines except few clauses. The clause relating to appointment on compassionate ground was never implemented. D.V.C., also, decided to implement N.C.W.A.- IV on the basis that no benefit beyond the existing provisions of N.C. W.A.- III would be extended. Accordingly, the writ petitioner was not entitled to get benefit of compassionate appointment. It was, further, contended that the writ petitioner was not entitled to get an appointment under Office Circular dated March 16, 1995 as the D.V.C under the said circular decided to extend the benefit of appointments on compassionate ground only with effect from September 17,1993, which was a date subsequent to the death of the employee concerned. 4. In the aforesaid background, the learned Single Judge held that it appeared from a circular dated July 17, 1984 that D.V.C. itself earlier had a scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, which was perhaps discontinue and by the circular dated July 17, 1984 such scheme was re- introduced. No materials have been produced before the Court by D.V.C. to show when and whether such scheme, which was re-introduced on July 17, 1984, was discontinued. No materials have been produced before the Court by D.V.C. to show when and whether such scheme, which was re-introduced on July 17, 1984, was discontinued. Since there was a scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, the said scheme could not be said to have extinguished with the closer of the mines. Since compassionate appointments are made to do social justice, the same certainly could not be done away merely because the mines remained closed for some time. 5. Being, aggrieved D.V.C. has come up with this appeal. We have heard Ms. Debjani Sengupta, learned Advocate for the D.V .C. and Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner/respondent in the appeal. 6. The writ petitioner has failed to establish that there was any scheme for appointment on compassionate ground in respect of the employees of Bermo Coal Mines of D.V.C. prior to September 17,1993. Equally, the writ petitioner has failed to make out any case that any similarly circumstanced person has been appointed on compassionate ground. The concept of compassionate appointment is itself a discretionary one. No appointment on compassion can be made contrary to rules and as the writ petitioner has failed to make out any case of discrimination, the writ petititJl1cr, in our view, in the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case, is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. The appeal is, thus, allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Let xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on urgent basis. Ashok Kumar Mathur, C. J.: I agree. Appeal allowed.