Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1578 (JHR)

Tulsi Ram v. Central Coalfields Limited

2009-12-11

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, R.R.PRASAD

body2009
Order This appeal has been filed against the order dated 6.3.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 516 of 2007 whereby the writ petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate ground, was rejected. 2. The case of the petitioner-appellant herein is that his mother-in-law Sitwa Kamin an employee of the respondent Central Coalfields Limited died while she was in service, leaving behind her husband and three daughters, out of which two were minor at the time of her death and therefore, the petitioner-appellant being the sole heir, is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground in place of his deceased mother-in-law. 3. Initially, no specific arguments were advanced by the counsel for the appellant as to whether the appellant being the son-in-law, could claim compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father-in-law and we also permitted the counsel to address us as to whether the son-in-law would be eligible for compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father-in-law. Subse-quently, it was clarified that it was not his father-in-law, who had died but it was the mother-in-law of the appellant, who had died while she was in service, leaving behind her husband, three daughters and son-in-law. 4. But if this is the factual position, then the question of the appellant being the only dependent of the deceased mother-in-law does not arise at all. 5. The Rule in regard to compassionate appointment incorporated under the Clauses 9.3.0, 9.3.1, 9.3.2 and 9.3.3 clearly envisage the conditions relating to the employment of the dependants of the deceased employee. Rule 9.3.1 clearly lays / down that the employment would be provided to the dependant of the workers, who are disabled permanently or died while in service, in which case the employment would be provided to the dependant of the worker. In the instant matter, the husband of the deceased as well as two unmarried daughters, who were alive would have a superior claim than the appellant, although two daughters were minor at the time of death of their mother. The claim of the son-in-law of the deceased lady worker, cannot be accepted as the son-in-law of the deceased could not have been held to be dependant of his mother-in-law. The claim of the son-in-law of the deceased lady worker, cannot be accepted as the son-in-law of the deceased could not have been held to be dependant of his mother-in-law. The husband of the deceased was still alive at the time of her death and it is not the case of the petitioner that he was not in a position to maintain his family so as to claim compassionate appointment in place of his deceased mother-in-law. It is, no doubt, true that the son-in-law under the Rule might have been eligible to claim appointment, in case the deceased lady had died leaving behind her daughters only and were minors, in which case the son-in-law under clause 9.3.3 could have been treated to be a dependant of the deceased. But in the existing facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant, son-in-law under clause 9.3.3 could not be treated to be dependant of the• deceased specially when his father-in-law, i.e. the husband of the deceased, was alive and the two daughters of the deceased although were minors, were eligible to be kept under roster for appointment. 6. It would be relevant to mention that as per the catena of decisions of the Supreme Court, compassionate appointments are generally granted to tide over the financial crisis of the family which it suffers on account of the death of the head of the family, but once the cause does not survive due to efflux of time, claim of compassionate appointment also may not be entertained and in any view the heirs under the Rule alone would be eligible for compassionate appointment. 7. As already stated, the appellant son-in-law in the first place could not be held to be the dependent of his deceased mother-in-law so as to look after the heirs of the deceased which included her two daughters and husband. However, if the husband of the deceased had not been in a position to maintain his family, then only the son-in-law, perhaps, could claim himself to be the dependent of the deceased so as to claim appointment in place of his deceased mother-in-law. However, if the husband of the deceased had not been in a position to maintain his family, then only the son-in-law, perhaps, could claim himself to be the dependent of the deceased so as to claim appointment in place of his deceased mother-in-law. Thus, the facts and circumstances do not justify the claim of the appellant to the effect that he was the sole dependent of the deceased, specially when the other two' daughters, although were minors at the time of the death of their mother, were eligible as per the Rule in order to be maintained in the roster for appointment. 8. Thus, the appeal has no merit and hence, the same is dismissed.