Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1441 (JHR)

Jhalwa Devi v. Central Coalfields Limited

2009-11-16

DABBIRU GANESHRAO PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT : D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this writ application is to the letter dated 20.6.2007 issued by the respondent No. 7, whereby a prayer for grant of compassionate appointment of the petitioner's son under the provisions of Clause 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A. VII has been rejected. 3. The petitioner's husband was an ex-employee of the respondent-C.C.L. He died in harness on 21.5.1999. Less than three months from the date of demise of her husband, the petitioner submitted an application before the concerned authorities on 11.8.1993 for grant of compassionate appointment for her son. 4. The application remained pending for more than two years and thereafter, a decision was taken by the Personnel Manager (MP) that the petitioner's claim cannot be entertained on account of the fact that the name of/her son did not appear in the Service Excerpts or the LTC/LLTC Option's Form 'A' of the deceased employee. 5. The petitioner had protested against such decision on the ground that the deceased husband had mentioned the name of her son as dependant and such information was furnished to the colliery concerned. 6. It further appears that on such protest, the concerned authorities of the respondents issued a letter to the concerned colliery to forward the Service Excerpts of the deceased employee and to inform as to whether the name of the son of the petitioner was recorded therein as a dependant of the employee. 7. It also appears that the reply dated 30.10.2003 (Annexure- G) to the query was received which affirmed that the name of the petitioner's son, namely, Mintua Bedia was mentioned in the service records of the deceased employee as a dependant son. 8. In spite of such affirmation, instead of taking a prompt decision, the respondents, by their delayed impugned letter dated 20.6.2007 rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that the prayer for compassionate appointment has already been rejected and communicated to the Area on 16.10.2001. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order, submits that the impugned order has been passed in a most arbitrary and discriminatory manner. The petitioner had a definite right to claim compassionate appointment of her son as per the provisions under Clause 9.3.2. of the N.C.W.A.- VII. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order, submits that the impugned order has been passed in a most arbitrary and discriminatory manner. The petitioner had a definite right to claim compassionate appointment of her son as per the provisions under Clause 9.3.2. of the N.C.W.A.- VII. Learned Counsel further submits that the respondents have rejected the petitioner's claim, on a misconceived and misleading ground and have not corrected the stand, even though the initial misconception has been cleared by the relevant documents maintained by the respondents themselves. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondents-C.C.I. would argue that the claim of the petitioner was earlier rejected in 2001 and against such order of rejection, the petitioner did not chose to avail legal remedy. Rather, the present writ application was filed after more than six years of the date of rejection and, therefore, the very purpose for which compassionate appointment is to be granted, having been frustrated by the lapse of such considerable time, the petitioner cannot legally claim any right for compassionate appointment of her son. 11. From the admitted facts narrated above, the petitioner being a widow of the deceased employee, had submitted her application within three months from the date of death of the deceased employee, for the grant of compassionate appointment to her son. The respondents did not take any prompt decision and after wasting more than two years time, they had decided not to grant the prayer for compassionate appointment, on a misconceived ground that the name of the petitioner's son did not appear in the service records of the deceased employee. It also appears that such decision of the respondents was not taken as final decision, in view of the fact that notwithstanding the decision to reject the petitioner's application, the respondents, albeit on the protest of the petitioner, had called for the service records of the deceased employee from the concerned colliery and thereafter, the service records confirmed that the name of the petitioner's son did appear as the dependant son of the deceased employee. Apparently, the ground on which the petitioner's application was initially (sic) was a misconceived and misleading ground and the decision of rejection was itself not founded on any proper or genuine basis. Apparently, the ground on which the petitioner's application was initially (sic) was a misconceived and misleading ground and the decision of rejection was itself not founded on any proper or genuine basis. The respondents authorities ought to have taken an appropriate decision on the petitioner's claim upon being satisfied that the claim for appointment of the petitioner's son was a legitimate claim, in view of the recording in the Service Excerpts of the deceased employee. Instead of acting in a reasonable and bona fide manner, the respondents appear to have brushed aside the petitioner's claim on the ground of earlier rejection of her prayer and after having wasted precious time all along, on account of their inaction and improper action, have now wanted to shift the blame upon the petitioner on the ground of delay. 12. The conduct of the respondents amply demonstrates a palpably arbitrary action in a most unjustified manner. 13. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I find merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.7.2007 (Annexure-7) is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment of her son and take appropriate decision on the same and if the petitioner's claim is otherwise tenable, shall pass an appropriate order for the appointment of the petitioner's son under the provisions of Clause 9.3.2. of the N.C.W.A.- VII. The above action must be taken by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order. 14. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. 15. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the parties. Application disposed of.