Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1412 (JHR)

Yasoda Devi v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

2015-11-05

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner is the widow of late employee Aghnu Oraon, whose claim for compassionate appointment on his death on 13.10.2010 by the impugned communication at Annexure 7 dated 15.1.2013, issued by the General Manager- P-NEE/R, CCL, has been rejected. 3. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the employee had never attended duty for 17 long years since 19th October, 1993. He only came on one day i.e. 19th October, 1998 after 5 years to join. The respondents considered that the petitioner would not have been dependant upon the earnings of the employee obtained from employment as he was never paid salary for the last 17 years before his death on that account. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was destitute on the death of the employee in harness for seeking employment on compassionate ground. 4. The respondents have stated that 50% of C.M.P.F. dues have been released as per nomination in equal share between the petitioner and the daughter. The daughter has not yet collected the amount. The deceased was not a member of Pension Scheme. However, gratuity is under process and will be paid as per nomination. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, submits that the petitioner's husband was suffering from mental illness and the certificate at Annexure-4 from the Medical Officer of Central Institute of Psychiatry dated 13.2.1998 would show that he was under treatment in the Institute. There was no proceeding or punishment imposed for such an unauthorized absence as required under the Standing Order of the respondent-Employer, CCL., specifically Clause 26.29 and 27 also. Therefore, if the employee remained on roll admittedly till his death, claim for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on those grounds. 6. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and the relevant material facts pleaded, this case appears to be one where claim for compassionate appointment cannot be justified. If the family remained without the earnings of the employee for 17 long years due to his unauthorized absence, it cannot be said that death in harness would satisfy the conditions of the scheme for compassionate appointment under the respondent employer. The document at Annexure-4 shows that he had attended the outpatient department on 13.2.1998 on one day and any symptom of psychosis was ruled out. The document at Annexure-4 shows that he had attended the outpatient department on 13.2.1998 on one day and any symptom of psychosis was ruled out. There are no other reports of any such mental illness of the employee except the said documents at Annexure-4. The concerned authority under C.C.L. may also be responsible for not taking appropriate action even in case of such long unauthorized absence, but that is a separate matter altogether. The claim for compassionate appointment under NCWA applicable in the Organization cannot be denied if the family of the petitioner were dependent upon the earnings of the employee under the respondent. That obviously is not the case here. Therefore, ground taken in the impugned order does not appear to suffer from any perversity or lack of application of mind to the relevant material facts. 7. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.