Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 332 (JHR)

Manju Devi v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited

2014-03-04

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
ORDER The appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal, challenging the order dated 13.02.2013 passed in W.P. (S) No. 7670 of 2006, in and by which the learned Single Judge refused to issue direction upon the respondents-BCCL to consider the case of the appellant's son for compassionate appointment and directing the respondents-BCCL to consider the case of the appellant for grant of monthly subsistence allowance in terms of circulars issued under SAIL. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the deceased-employee, Om Prakash Prasad, died in harness on 9.4.1996 while in service. At the time of his death, his son, namely, Amit Kumar was minor. Under the SAIL terms and conditions, the appellant claimed appointment of her son on compassionate ground, which has been rejected by the respondent-BCCL vide Reference No. WM/PS (EMPLOYMENT)/2006- 4269 dated 1.2.2006. 3. Case of the appellant is that vide letter no. 24.4.2001, she was informed by the respondent-BCCL that as per the terms of agreement reached between Union and Management, no employment will be provided to the female dependent of the deceased who is guided under the “SAIL Terms & Conditions” and that she will be given monetary monthly subsistence allowance in lieu of employment. In pursuance thereof, according to the appellant, she filed her representation on 29.11.2001 (Annexure 3 to the memo of appeal) requesting the management to pay the subsistence allowance to her till her son attained the majority, but there was no response from the respondent-BCCL. The appellant is said to have filed another representation dated 25.11.2003 (Annexure 5 to the memo of appeal) seeking compassionate appointment for her son but the same was rejected by the management vide letter no. 4269 dated 1.2.2006 (Annexure-9 to the memo of appeal). Challenging the said order, the appellant filed writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 7670 of 2006 for quashing the communication dated 1.02.2006 but the same was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant had repeatedly made representation requesting the management to provide compassionate appointment to her son and over the years even subsistence allowance was not paid to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that since the appellant was not paid subsistence allowance over the years, under the 'SAIL terms & Conditions' the appellant claimed compassionate appointment for her elder son, which has been rejected by letter no. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that since the appellant was not paid subsistence allowance over the years, under the 'SAIL terms & Conditions' the appellant claimed compassionate appointment for her elder son, which has been rejected by letter no. 4269 dated 1.02.2006 and the learned Single Judge was not right in directing the respondents to consider the case of the appellant only for grant of monthly subsistence allowance. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-BCCL submitted that under the 'SAIL terms & Conditions', there is no provision or scheme seeking compassionate appointment applicable to the employee, who died in service of Dugda Coal Washery, an Unit of Hindustan Steel Limited (H.S.L.), which were taken over by Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) and thereafter merged with Bharat Coking Coal Limited (B.C.C.L.). Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the application of the appellant for compassionate appointment of her son was rejected as there was no provision for providing employment in death cases in SAIL and in such cases, the dependent of the deceased-employee is entitled only for subsistence allowance at the rate of 1500/- per month till the attaining the age of 60 years of widow lady. The learned counsel further submitted that by letter no. 243 dated 24.4.2001(Annexure-2 to the memo of appeal), the appellant was offered monetary monthly subsistence allowance of Rs. 1500 per month and inspite of such communication, there was no response from the appellant for getting monetary compensation, then the appellant cannot seek for compassionate appointment of her son in the year 2003 long after the death of her husband, which is not permissible under the terms and conditions of SAIL. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. Annexure-6 to the memo of appeal, refers to the discussion held on 14.12.1993 between the representatives of Coal Washery Workers Union and the Management of BCCL. As per the terms and Conditions of the settlement between the workers' Union and Management-BCCL, in case the dependent of deceased employee is female, monthly subsistence allowance @ 1500/- per month will be paid till such time the minor male dependent attains the age of 18 years or till the female dependent reached the age of 60 years, depending upon the consent of such female dependent. 8.On behalf of respondent-BCCL, our attention is drawn to Annexure-2, which is letter No. 243 dated 24.4.2001 issued by respondent-BCCL, to contend that as terms of the settlement reached between the Union and Management, monetary subsistence allowance was offered to the appellant. The said communication no. 243 dated 24.4.2001 reads as under:- “With reference to your application dated 19.1.2001 this is to inform you that as per the terms of agreement reach between Union and management no employment will be provided to the Female Dependent of the deceased who guided under SAIL TERMS & CONDITIONS she will be given monetary monthly subsistence allowance in lieu of employment. You are, therefore, advised to submit your application for the same early.” 9. According to the appellant, in response to the said letter no. 243 dated 24.4.2001, the appellant filed a representation on 29.11.2001 (Annexure 3 to the memo of appeal) requesting therein to the management to pay subsistence allowance to her till her son attains the age of 18 years and after attaining the age of 18 years, her subsistence allowance may be stopped and her son may be given employment. But there was no response from the management. According to the appellant, again she filed a representation dated 31.05.2002 (Annexure-4 to the memo of appeal), but no response was made from the management-BCCL. 10. Any direction to consider the dependent for compassionate appointment could only be in terms of the rules/scheme. According to the respondents, as per the scheme, the female dependent of the deceased employee had to be given subsistence allowance of Rs. 1500/- per month which is payable in lieu of compassionate appointment. Of course, as per the scheme, in the case of female dependent of deceased-employee, she had to be immediately given subsistence allowance @ 1500/- per month, which is payable in lieu of compassionate appointment. But, in this case, we find that inspite of number of representations, the subsistence allowance was not paid to the appellant. Since, the subsistence allowance (in lieu of compassionate appointment) was not paid to the appellant, we are of the view, the case of appellant is to be considered for compassionate appointment. But, in this case, we find that inspite of number of representations, the subsistence allowance was not paid to the appellant. Since, the subsistence allowance (in lieu of compassionate appointment) was not paid to the appellant, we are of the view, the case of appellant is to be considered for compassionate appointment. It is also pertinent to point out that order dated 1.02.2006, which was impugned before the Writ Court, does not disclose the fact that the appellant received the subsistence allowance and representation of the appellant has been rejected by the respondent-authority by cryptic order and in such view of the matter, in our considered opinion the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment needs to be considered. 11. Even though as per the scheme, when the deceased employee was entitled only for subsistence allowance in lieu of compassionate appointment, the present case stands on different footing, in view of the fact that the appellant-widow has not been paid subsistence allowance over the years. 12. Since, over the years, the appellant has not been given subsistence allowance in lieu of compassionate appointment, we are of the view that the case of the appellant seeking compassionate appointment for her son is to be considered by the respondent-management. The order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 7670 of 2006 dated 13.2.2013 is set aside and this Letters Patent appeal is allowed. The respondent-BCCL is directed to consider the case of the appellant regarding employment of her son, Amit Kumar, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.