Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 562 (JHR)

Gita @ Geeta Mehra v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited

2015-04-30

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
ORDER : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This is the second round of litigation for seeking compassionate appointment by the petitioner as her claim has been rejected by the impugned order dated 21/30.12.2013 (Annexure-2) passed by the Project Officer, Gondudih Colliery, BCCL (Respondent No. 3). Rejection has been made primarily on the ground that the mother-in-law of the petitioner Sabitri Bai refused to give no objection and made representation that the petitioner was suspected to be involved in the murder of his son and that the petitioner had entered into marriage with another person after the death of her son. 3. Counsel for the petitioner answers each of these contentions while submitting that in the first place, the FIR being Kenduadih P.S. Case No. 90/2006 registered under section 302/34 IPC on account of death of her husband, was against unknown and not only that, after the investigation, police submitted final form in the matter on 30.04.2007 and no material was found against the petitioner. The final form has been accepted by the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad vide order dated 13.06.2008, a xerox copy of certified copy of the order has also been produced in support of the statements made at para-17 of the writ petition. The other fact which has also been taken note of in the previous judgment dated 22.10.2013 passed in WPS No. 7071/2012 in the petitioner's case is that the petitioner being the nominee as mentioned in Form-F under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and having made a claim for payment of admissible Gratuity of the deceased employee, has been granted Gratuity dues by the Controlling Authority under the Act of 1972 by order dated 06.01.2009 (Annexure-3). It is further stated that the employee has left two minor sons out of the wedlock with the petitioner who are dependent upon her and facing hardship on account of loss of bread earner and there is no source of livelihood. Therefore, grounds of rejection are wholly untenable in law as well as on facts and the lady mother-in-law has not come forward to substantiate her allegation. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the mother-in-law Sabitri Bai was herself employee of the BCCL and she took voluntary retirement and is enjoying admissible post retiral benefits; in that sense, she is not even dependent of the deceased. 4. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the mother-in-law Sabitri Bai was herself employee of the BCCL and she took voluntary retirement and is enjoying admissible post retiral benefits; in that sense, she is not even dependent of the deceased. 4. Counsel for the respondent BCCL has defended the impugned order on the ground that in matter relating to compassionate appointment, no objection on an affidavit from each of the dependent of the deceased employee is mandatory requirement to consider the cases of compassionate appointment of any such dependent. He submits that the impugned order clearly reflects objection of mother-in-law Sabitri Bai. Therefore, claim of the petitioner is not worthy of being allowed and it has been refused by a well reasoned order with full application of mind to relevant facts. 5. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and factual backdrop of the case, as noticed hereinabove, it appears that the rejection of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment simply on the ground of objection by the mother-in-law on unsubstantiated allegations that the petitioner was involved in the murder of her husband and she had married another person after his death, is not proper in the eye of law. Mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Respondents do not appear to have conducted any inquiry further to find out as to whether the petitioner had really entered into second marriage after the death of her husband. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act having found the claim of the petitioner admissible being the nominee, has also released the same in 2009 itself. As a matter of fact, allegation that the petitioner was involved in the murder of her husband, deceased employee, is wholly untenable on facts also as in the FIR registered against the unknown for the said incident, upon submission of the final form by the police, learned Trial Court has also accepted the same and the case has been closed. It is not in doubt that the deceased has left behind the petitioner widow along with two minor sons who were dependent upon him. Death has occurred in August 2006 and since then, dependents are scurrying for relief, but the respondents do not appear to have given a sympathetic consideration. It is not in doubt that the deceased has left behind the petitioner widow along with two minor sons who were dependent upon him. Death has occurred in August 2006 and since then, dependents are scurrying for relief, but the respondents do not appear to have given a sympathetic consideration. The requirement of furnishing no objection certificate cannot be allowed to become a tool in the hands of the person who has certain grudge, may be against the claimant in such circumstances. 6. In the totality of the facts and reasons recorded hereinabove, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and it is accordingly quashed. Let the matter be reconsidered by the competent authority / Respondent No. 3 -Project Officer, Gondudih Colliery, BCCL, in accordance with law. It would be open to the Respondent no. 3 to give opportunity to the petitioner as also to the other lady Sabitri Bai to substantiate their contentions. The Respondent No. 3 would also have the liberty to hold an inquiry as to whether the petitioner has entered into any second marriage after death of her husband. However, a considered decision be taken thereafter within a period of twelve weeks taking into account all germane and relevant facts. 7. The writ petition is allowed in the manner indicated hereinabove.