Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 842 (JHR)

Krishna Kumar v. Central Coalfields Ltd. , Ranchi

2009-05-27

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the Respondent-C.C.L. 2. Petitioner, in this writ application has prayed for quashing the letter dated 04.10.2007 (Annexure-7), issued by the Respondent No. 5, whereby the prayer for compassionate appointment to the petitioner no. 1-brother of the deceased employee and alternatively to the petitioner no. 2-widow of the deceased-employee, has been refused by the Respondents-C.C.L. 3. Deceased brother of the petitioner no. 1 was a permanent employee under the C.C.L. and he died in harness on 15.05.2005. It is explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased had joined service on 19.09.1998 and thereafter, his marriage was solemnized on 11.12.2000. Though he had initially nominated the petitioner being his brother as his nominee, but the deceased could not mention the name of his wife in his service records during his lifetime. 4. Upon his death, the petitioner no. 2 being the widow of the deceased employee, had approached the Respondents with a prayer for granting compassionate appointment to her in accordance with the provisions of Clause 9.3.2 of the N.C.W.A. Agreement-VII but she was turned away on the ground that her name did not find mention in the family chart of the deceased-employee. On the widow (petitioner no. 2) being turned away, the petitioner no. 1 being the dependant brother of the deceased had filed an application within time but his application for grant of compassionate appointment was also rejected on the following grounds: - “Sri Krishna Kumar submitted application for his compassionate employment as brother of Lt. Rajdeep. On perusal of the records it is evident that the Ex-employee has wife named Anita Devi. Question of appointment of indirect dependant i.e. brother etc. arises only when no direct dependent i.e. wife son etc. are available. In the said facts and circumstances the applicant being indirect dependant of the deceased, the employment proposal has not been considered by the competent authority.” 5. Learned counsel for the Respondents by reference to the counter affidavit submits that since the petitioner no. 2-widow of the deceased employee being a direct member, did not submit her application within time, after the demise of her deceased husband, the brother-petitioner no.1 being an indirect dependant cannot claim any benefit for compassionate appointment. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondents by reference to the counter affidavit submits that since the petitioner no. 2-widow of the deceased employee being a direct member, did not submit her application within time, after the demise of her deceased husband, the brother-petitioner no.1 being an indirect dependant cannot claim any benefit for compassionate appointment. 6. The stand taken by the Respondents does not appear to be in consonance with the demands of justice. The prayer for compassionate appointment of the petitioner no. 1 appears to have been rejected on the ground that the “record” indicates that the ex-employee has already a direct dependant namely his wife, Most. Anita Devi and if such information was available on the basis of the record maintained by the Company then there is no reason as to why she was not offered employment when it is her claim, as stated in the present writ application, that she had earlier approached the concerned authorities of the Respondents for compassionate appointment well within time but she was turned away on the ground that her name did not appear in the records of the family history of the ex-employee. Having denied the benefit of compassionate appointment to the widow of the ex-employee, the Respondents want to take advantage of the purported lapses on the part of the widow to file her written application and now want to deny the benefit to the brother of the ex-employee who admittedly is the nominee and has filed his application well within the period of limitation. 7. It further appears from Annexure-A (i) filed by the Respondents, which is a copy of the application filed by the petitioner no. 1, that besides his own photograph, the petitioner no. 1 had also filed a joint photograph of the deceased-employee and his wife, declaring thereby that the widow of the deceased-employee is alive. Such information was given to the Respondents within three months from the date of the death of the deceased-employee. Yet, the Respondents instead of taking a prompt decision for offering compassionate employment to the widow and alternatively, to the dependant brother of the deceased, namely the petitioner no. 1, did not offer any response on the petitioner’s application and after more than two years, have communicated that his application for compassionate appointment, has been rejected. 8. Yet, the Respondents instead of taking a prompt decision for offering compassionate employment to the widow and alternatively, to the dependant brother of the deceased, namely the petitioner no. 1, did not offer any response on the petitioner’s application and after more than two years, have communicated that his application for compassionate appointment, has been rejected. 8. In my opinion, the impugned order is arbitrary and without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the claim of the dependants of the ex-employee in proper perspective. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the matter is remitted back to the concerned authorities of the Respondent-C.C.L. to reconsider the petitioners’ claim for compassionate appointment either to the petitioner no. 1 himself or to the petitioner no. 2 being the surviving widow of the ex-employee. Such decision must be taken and effectively communicated to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of. 11. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondent-C.C.L.