Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1196 (JHR)

Surji Devi v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

2015-09-30

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is admittedly the widow of late Janki Ghatwar, who died in harness on 24.10.2011 while working as Telephone Mechanic, Category VI in Khas Mahal Project at Gandhi Nagar, Bokaro under respondent-CCL. Petitioner made a claim for compassionate appointment of her younger daughter Shila Kumari through an application dated 10.4.2012. She also submitted a bond paper and certificate of BDO dated 24.3.2012 in support of the statement that Shila Kumari is the daughter of the deceased employee. However, by Annexure 4 issued by the respondent no.6, the Senior Manager Personnel, Khas Mahal Project dated 20.4.2012, the petitioner was informed that case of Shila Kumari cannot be considered for compassionate appointment in terms of Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA as her name does not appear in any of the service records of the deceased employee. 3. This stand has also been supported in the counter affidavit by the respondents. Service excerpts, Gratuity Nomination Form, LTC/LLTC Option Form and pension records under CMPF Scheme, 1998 are enclosed in support thereof. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder has enclosed the matriculation certificate of Shila Kumari, which shows that she has born on 18.2.1996 and her father's name is Janki Ghatwar i.e. the husband of the present petitioner. She has passed the Annual Secondary Examination in 2014 as per mark sheet dated 29.4.2014. Learned counsel has also enclosed UID Card and Aadhar Card to submit that Shila Kumari has born out of Surji Devi, wife of the deceased employee. Learned counsel further submits that the service excerpts relied upon by the respondents are of 1987 and the gratuity nomination form filled up by the employee refers the name of wife Surji Devi. If the nomination has been made in favour of the wife only, that cannot be questioned to dispute the claim of any dependant son or daughter of the said employee, if they are ascertainable from the admissible documents upon inquiry from the concerned quarters. He has relied upon a judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Vs. He has relied upon a judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi & ors, reported in 2008(4) JCR 26 (Jhr.) in support of the aforesaid contention that order rejecting the claim of the petitioner's daughter is based upon irrelevant materials and the petitioner or her daughter were never given opportunity to produce admissible and cogent documents in support of the claim of her daughter as being the dependant of the deceased employee. If on facts it is found on inquiry and on the basis of admissible documents that Shila Kumari was the daughter of the deceased employee, then there is no reason why her claim should be rejected on the ground that service excerpts prepared in 1987 much before her birth in 1996, does not bear her name. 5. Having considered the aforesaid relevant material facts and the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that provisions of NCWA contemplate social welfare scheme on the death of employee in harness to take care of their dependants. If Shila Kumari was born in 1996 much after preparation of service excerpts in 1987, respondents ought to have undertaken an inquiry from the concerned quarter and given opportunity to the petitioner and Shila Kumari to produce all admissible and cogent documents such as matriculation certificate etc and papers of the school from where she has passed to come to a definite finding whether Shila Kumari is indeed the daughter of the deceased employee. Rejection on the ground that her name did not appear in the service excerpts shows non-application of mind and failure to observe the procedure where the petitioner or her daughter could have got an opportunity to substantiate her claim. In such circumstances, the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the respondents. 6. The impugned order dated 20.4.2012, Annexure 4 is set aside. The competent authority/respondent no.6, Senior Manager, Personnel, Khas Mahal Project, Sunday Bazar, Gandhi Nagar, Bokaro would reconsider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and in view of the observations made hereinabove after due inquiry come to a finding whether Shila Kumari is the daughter of the deceased employee. The competent authority/respondent no.6, Senior Manager, Personnel, Khas Mahal Project, Sunday Bazar, Gandhi Nagar, Bokaro would reconsider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and in view of the observations made hereinabove after due inquiry come to a finding whether Shila Kumari is the daughter of the deceased employee. Such consideration be made within a reasonable time preferably 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with a detailed representation duly supported with all necessary facts and documents. 7. This writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid manner.