Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1106 (JHR)

Baby Kumari v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

2012-07-31

ALOK SINGH

body2012
ORDER By the Court.-Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 5.9.2009 whereby the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the present Case, inter alia, are that the petitioner's father late Ram Sanehi Beldar was working as Dumper Operator, who died in harness on 11.7.2000 leaving behind a daughter-the petitioner Undisputedly the mother of the' petitioner had also died on 11.5.1999. Undisputedly the petitioner had made an application before the respondent No.3 on 27.11.2000 for her compassionate appointment which could not be taken up due to the fact that petitioner was minor as on date of application. Again the' petitioner made a fresh application on 28.10.2004 after attaining majority as per the provision of the National Coal Wages Act No. VI, which was rejected by the respondent on 27.12.2004 in terms of Circular dated 25/26-11.2004 by saying that her application for dependent employment was made after eighteen months from the date of the death of the employee which cannot be entertained. Aggrieved by the order of rejection the petitioner moved before this Court in W. P. (5) No. 1711/2005 wherein the rejection order dated 27.12.2004 was quashed. vide judgment dated 22.7.2009 with the direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh within two months by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 3. Accordingly the petitioner made a fresh representation on 27.7.2009 (Annexure-9) before respondent No. 3 which has also been rejected by respondent No. 3 on 5.9.2009 (Annexure-10), hence this writ petition. 4. I have heard Mr. S.K. Laik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta learned counsel for the respondents and have carefully perused the records. 5. It is admitted fact that as on the date of the death of her father, the petitioner was minor aged about 15 years, therefore her application dated 27.11.2000 for dependent employment could not be entertained at that point of time. 6. Anoop Kr. Mehta learned counsel for the respondents and have carefully perused the records. 5. It is admitted fact that as on the date of the death of her father, the petitioner was minor aged about 15 years, therefore her application dated 27.11.2000 for dependent employment could not be entertained at that point of time. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that as per the provision of the National Coal Wage Agreement-IV, only such minor male dependant of the concerned worker will be kept on live roaster who is 15 years and above in age and will be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualification when he attains the age of 18 years whereas there is no such provision of live roaster for the female dependent. Accordingly in absence of such provision for the female dependent the petitioner was asked to apply for the compassionate appointment on attaining the age of majority. The petitioner attained the age of 18 years on 8.8.2003. However the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment after 15 months on 1.11.2004. Thus the application for compassionate appointment has been made almost after 4 years and 4 months from the date of the death of Late R.S. Beldar Le. 11.7.2000 which is contrary to the requirement of Company's circular dated 24.7.2009 by which time period for submission of application has been fixed to be 18 months. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the petitioner even for the delay of the fifteen months after attaining the majority. 7. It is thus clear that petitioner when was minor had applied on 27.11.2000 within five months' from the date of death of her father however not given appointment with the assurance that she should apply after attaining the age of majority. Therefore, she has applied for compassionate appointment on 1.11.2004 within fifteen months from attaining the age of majority. Application for compassionate appointment can be moved only on attaining the age of 18 years therefore period of limitation must be reckoned accordingly from the day she has attained majority and • not from the date of the death of her father. 8. The BCCL is expected to act reasonably. Application for compassionate appointment can be moved only on attaining the age of 18 years therefore period of limitation must be reckoned accordingly from the day she has attained majority and • not from the date of the death of her father. 8. The BCCL is expected to act reasonably. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case that after the death of the mother of the petitioner father of the petitioner has also died in harness leaving behind a minor daughter. She should not be left helpless to die in starvation. She has lost both the parents and has no other source of income for her compassionate appointment seem to be only hope and alternative. 9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case request for compassionate appointment should not have been denied on hyper technical ground. 10. Therefore the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to take decision afresh on the application of the petitioner within 60 days from today and if the petitioner is otherwise qualified and eligible she shall be provided appointment according to his qualification and eligibility. Petition allowed.