Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 69 (JHR)

Bimal Kumar Bose v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

2003-01-15

TAPEN SEN

body2003
ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazum-dar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The bone of contention in the instant case is that while on the one hand the petitioner asserts that his son-in-law namely Ashis Kumar Chowdhary is entitled to appointment on compassionate considerations, the respondents on the other, dispute the same and submit that he, not being a direct dependant, cannot be granted the said benefit as the Rule i.e. National Coal Wage Agreement specifically envisages that the dependent for purposes of the said Rule would mean the wife/husband as the case may be, or unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son and only when no such direct dependent is available then it would mean the younger brother, widowed daughter, widowed daughter-in- law and son-in- law residing with the employee and almost wholly dependent on the earning of the employee. Reference may be made to the order dated 28.11.2002. 3. Mr. R.S. Mazurndar on that day had submitted that there are three daughters and upon such a submission being made, Mr.A.K. Mehta had argued and had stated that these three daughters are direct dependents and that being the position, giving employment to the son-in-law would create further problems. Thereafter, Mr. R.S Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed independent affidavits of Mrs. Sadhana Bose wife of the petitioner wherein she has stated that she has no objection if Ashis Kumar Chowdhary, her son-in-law, is given employment, who is residing with the petitioner. Similar affidavits have been filed on behalf of Mrs. Anjana Das elder daughter of the petitioner, Ranjana Choudhary second daughter of the petitioner and Aparna Bose third daughter of the petitioner. 4. From the affidavits, so filed, it appears that Ashis Kumar Chowdhary, for whom the employment is sought for, is the husband of Ranjana Choudhary second daughter of the petitioner. 5. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in addition to the fact that none of the family members have any objection and also in view of the fact that the second daughter is living with the petitioner and her husband, having no independent income of his own, should not be deprived of compassionate appointment by technicalities of the Rule. He has further submitted that the respondents have acted in a discriminatory manner in so far as the petitioner is concerned. He has cited instances of Vishnu Bhagwan Prasad, Subodh Ram and Mithilesh Shaw who were all sons-in-law of different employees and who were given employment. Mr. A.K. Mehta in reply to the aforesaid contention has submitted with reference to paragraph 5 of the Rejoinder filed on behalf of the respondents that in absence of full details and particulars, the respondents are not in a position to give a suitable reply and if appointment orders are produced then perhaps the respondents would be in a position to give proper reply. He has further submitted that the wife of the petitioner is already in employment and therefore the claim of the son-in-law who is indirect dependent should not be allowed. So far as the submission of Mr. A.K. Mehta to the effect that the wife of the petitioner is already in employment and therefore, employment of his son-in-law, being an indirect dependent, be not allowed, is not accepted and this argument is rejected in view of the fact that the entity of the wife is equivalent to a totally separate unit, she having been employed and/or taken in the services of BCCL independently and separately. 6. In that view of the matter the appointment of the son-in-law in place of her husband who has been declared to be medically unfit, should not be allowed to be intermingled with the employment of the wife of the petitioner. 7. However, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, this Court feels that the respondents should re-consider the matter, regard being had to the fact that the respondents have, in fact, given employment to other sons-in-law and also taking into consideration that the son-in-law, for whom the petitioner is seeking employment, is unemployed and living with him. 8. Consequently the writ petition is disposed off giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent No. 2 who will look into the matter, consider the situation in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order within a period of. three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For convenience of the parties, the writ petitioner shall serve a fresh representation along with all documents that he desires to reply upon.