Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1396 (JHR)

Naresh Ram v. Central Coalfields Limited

2015-11-03

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2015
ORDER : This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.04.2000 (Annexure-8) passed by Personnel Manager, Topa Colliery, whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Petitioner further prayed for quashing the order dated 24.07.2013, passed by General Manager (P&IR), C.C.L., Ranchi, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. It is stated that the petitioner's father namely Lalji Ram was working as Drill Helper, Category-II in Topa Colliery. It is further stated that while the father of petitioner was in employment, he died on 12.06.1993. Thereafter, petitioner's mother filed application on 06.09.1994 informing the management that on the date of death of her husband, petitioner was minor, therefore, she prayed that her son (petitioner) may be employed in service of C.C.L. after he attains the age of 18 years. Thereafter, she again filed another application on 25.05.1999 stating therein that her son (petitioner) had already attained the age of 18 years, therefore, he shall be appointed on compassionate ground, as petitioner's father died on 12.06.1993. The aforesaid application of petitioner's mother was rejected by Personnel Manager, Topa Colliery vide his letter dated 25.04.2000 (Annexure-8). Against that, petitioner filed an appeal before the competent authority. The said appeal was dismissed on 24.07.2013 (Annexure-9) by the respondent no. 3. Against the aforesaid two orders, the present writ application filed. 3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately after the death of the petitioner's father, the mother of the petitioner had informed the C.C.L. Authority that at the time of the death of the petitioner's father, petitioner was minor, therefore, he should be kept on Live Roster as per terms and condition of the Company Rule and whenever he will attain the age of majority, he should be appointed on the post. Thus, there is no delay in applying for compassionate appointment as mentioned in the impugned order. It is further submitted that in the year 2008, the respondents had issued a Circular wherein they have resolved that even if any dependent of the deceased is already employed in the Company, then also another dependent can be appointed on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced the said Circular for my perusal. It is further submitted that in the year 2008, the respondents had issued a Circular wherein they have resolved that even if any dependent of the deceased is already employed in the Company, then also another dependent can be appointed on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced the said Circular for my perusal. Accordingly, Sri Ajit Kumar submits that on the basis of the aforesaid Circular, second reason for rejecting the application of the petitioner that his mother is in service, therefore, he is not in a distress, is not sustainable. He further submits that the reason given by the appellate authority that at the time of death of petitioner's father there is no provision to keep the minor on Live Roster cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Lakhan Kumar Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. & Others reported in 2005 (2) JCR 459 (Jhr.). 4. On the other hand, Sri D.K. Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing for the Central Coalfields Limited submits that at the time of death of the father of the petitioner, there is no provision in the N.C.W. Agreement that minor son of the deceased be kept on Live Roster. Sri Chakraverty, further submits that from perusal of judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Lakhan Kumar Case (Supra), it is clear that in that case on the date of death, the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA)-VI has become effective, therefore, in that case the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that the case of petitioner is covered by the aforesaid NCWA-VI. Sri Chakraverty further submits that in the instant case admittedly the father of petitioner died in the year 1993, therefore, N.C.W.A.-VI has no application in this case. Sri Chakraverty further submits that the Circular dated 16.04.2008, whereby the policy of double employment introduced has no application in this case, because the said Circular has not operative with retrospective effect. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the impugned orders. From perusal of Annexure-8, it appears that the respondent has given the following reasons for rejecting the application:- “The proposal has not been agreed by the competent authority since there was delay in applying by the dependent and as the mother of the claimant is already employed in CCL the family is not in distress.” 6. From perusal of Annexure-8, it appears that the respondent has given the following reasons for rejecting the application:- “The proposal has not been agreed by the competent authority since there was delay in applying by the dependent and as the mother of the claimant is already employed in CCL the family is not in distress.” 6. Whereas, from perusal of Annexure-9, it appears that the appellate authority has given the following reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner:- “1. As per the service sheet excerpts-1987 the age of Sri Naresh Ram was 08 years as on 01.04.1987 which implies that on the date of death (i.e. 12.06.1993) he was about 14 years. 2. During the time of death there was no provisions of keeping the name of minor son in the Live Roster.” 7. Admittedly, when the father of petitioner died, NCWA-VI has not came into force. The said NCWA came into force on 01.07.1996. Under the said circumstance, at the relevant time, there is no provision to keep the minor on live roster. From perusal of Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Lakhan Kumar Vs. Central Coalfields Limited (supra), it is clear that in that case when the deceased employee died NCWA-VI had already become operative, therefore, Division Bench of this Court has held that the case of the minor is covered by Clause-9.5.0 of NCWA-VI. Since, at the time of the death of the petitioner's father NCWA-VI has not come into existence, therefore, I find no illegality and/or irregularity in the order of appellate Authority that there is no provision for keeping the name of minor son on live roster. 8. So far the second ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner that mother of petitioner is in service of the C.C.L., thus, the family is not in distress is concerned, I find that the Circular of giving double employment came into force on 16.04.2008. There is nothing in the said Circular to show that the same has become operative with retrospective effect. Under the said circumstance, since the mother of the petitioner is already in service, therefore, the family of the petitioner is not in distress. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, I find no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-8 & 9. 9. Under the said circumstance, since the mother of the petitioner is already in service, therefore, the family of the petitioner is not in distress. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, I find no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-8 & 9. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.