Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1167 (JHR)

Madan Oraon v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

2006-09-07

PERMOD KOHLI

body2006
JUDGMENT Permod Kohli, J. 1. Late father of the petitioner, namely, Charwa Oraon was an employee of the respondent-Company and was working as L.M.D. Helper in Bachra Colliery and died in harness on 28.12.99. Petitioner submitted his application form for compassionate appointment on 30.8.2000. His case has been rejected vide impugned communication dated 24.1.2002 on the ground of delay. It is stated that the application has been preferred beyond six months from the date of death of the deceased-employee and competent authority has not agreed to consider the case for employment. It is alleged that this communication was not served upon the petitioner and he came to know later and thereafter preferred a representation. Mother of the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 24.6.2002 to make a mercy petition. It is stated that she made mercy petition to the Director (Personnel), CCL, Ranchi and also reminders but the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has not been considered. The main contention of the petitioner is that though initially the limitation for filing application for compassionate appointment was fixed as six months vide circular dated 12.12.95, however, subsequently this period was extended to one year and again extended to one and half year. Petitioner has placed on record the orders passed by coordinate Benches of this Court wherein directions have been issued to reconsider the case in view of the extended limitation. 2. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that due to erosion of the Companys net worth, the respondent-Company was referred to B.I.F.R. on 23.11.01 and registered as case No. 502/02. The respondent-Company was declared a sick company and consequently several financial and administrative restrictions were imposed, such as, cost cutting measures, reduction in manpower and increasing output per man shift with a view to reduce losses to the Company. It is further stated that with a view to reduce the manpower Company has started offering V.R.S. Respondents have given the details of reduction of manpower during the year 2001-04. As many as 1440 persons were granted V.R.S. during the year 2001-02, 883 persons were granted V.R.S. during the year 2002-03 and 1178 persons during the year 2003-04. It is accordingly stated that the Company has taken a decision not to increase the manpower including by way of compassionate appointment. As many as 1440 persons were granted V.R.S. during the year 2001-02, 883 persons were granted V.R.S. during the year 2002-03 and 1178 persons during the year 2003-04. It is accordingly stated that the Company has taken a decision not to increase the manpower including by way of compassionate appointment. The Company suspended the employment during the period 2001-02 and it was only when the financial position of the Company improved the respondent- Company decided to clear the pending employment cases during the financial year 2003-04. It is stated that period was extended to one and half year vide circular dated 19.6.2003 w.e.f. 27.11.2002 and thus petitioners case is not covered by the extended period of limitation. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in 2005(3) JCR 269 (Jhr) in batch of Letter Patent Appeals. These appeals were directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge in "batch of writ petitions wherein a direction was issued to consider the applications for appointment filed beyond six months in view of the subsequent two circulars extending the period for making applications that had already come into operation. The Division Bench while declining to interfere with the directions of the learned Single Judge observed that the directions shall remain confined only to those writ petitioners. What has been observed by the Division Bench be noticed hereinbelow: 10. We see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge, but having regard to the questions raised, we are of the view that this order must be confined to these writ petitioners/respondents only, since their cases were considered by the appellant-authority after a long time. We, therefore, dispose of the appeals by affirming the order of the learned single Judge. But, we make it clear that the judgment of the learned single Judge and the directions contained therein shall remain confined to the respondents/writ petitioners only and will not create any precedent for future cases. 4. Similar issue came up for consideration before another Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6626 of 2005. Relying upon the Apex Court judgment in AIR 2005 S.C. 3275 this Court observed as under: It is settled proposition that compassionate appointment cannot be considered to be a source of recruitment or another mode of recruitment to government/public service. 4. Similar issue came up for consideration before another Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6626 of 2005. Relying upon the Apex Court judgment in AIR 2005 S.C. 3275 this Court observed as under: It is settled proposition that compassionate appointment cannot be considered to be a source of recruitment or another mode of recruitment to government/public service. The object and purpose of the compassionate appointment for the dependant of the deceased government servant is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family whose sole bread earner died leaving the family in lurch. The purpose is to enable the family to over come its immediate financial needs. The compassionate appointment cannot be given, as a matter of course, and depends upon various factors, including the financial condition of the family of the deceased and other related factors. Since the compassionate appointment is deviation from the constitutional mandate contemplated by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which permit the employment providing equal and fair opportunity to all the eligible persons, it is necessary that compassionate appointment is regulated by law/rules so as not to nullify the constitutional spirit. Where the rules or norms have been laid down, the compassionate appointment has to be made in accordance with such rules/norms. It was also observed that period of limitation commence from the date of the death of the employee. 5. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, limitation has to be strictly adhered to. This is particularly in view of the fact that judgment in 2005(3) JCR 269 (Jhr) relied upon by the petitioner is applicable only to the parties to that case. I am of the opinion that no direction can be issued de hors the rules. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.