Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 915 (JHR)

Parden Oraon v. Central Coalfields Limited

2015-08-03

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner is the widow of Late Binod Oraon @ Vinod Oraon, Ex-Operator, Helper Category-II, Gidi Washery under Respondent- Central Coalfields Limited, who went missing w.e.f. 3.10.2002. He was in continuous service from his initial joining. The information about missing was lodged before the Officer In-Charge of Bhurkunda Police Station, Hazaribag on 6.11.2002, copy thereof was also sent to the Project Officer of the Gidi Washery as per Annexure-1. She also lodged a 'Sanha' bearing No. 531 of 2002 dated 28.11.2002 when no action was taken on her complaint vide Annexure-1 before the Officer In-charge, Bhurkunda Police Station about her husband's missing. This was also followed by another representation on 28.11.2002 (Annexure-2/1). Petitioner claims to have represented before the Project Officer, Gidi Washery, Hazaribag on 5.12.2002 along with a copy of the F.I.R. Despite all these facts about the missing, the employee- Husband of the petitioner was proceeded against in a departmental proceeding for unauthorized absence vide charge-sheet dated 8.7.2003(Annexure-3), issued by the respondent No. 4, Project Officer, Gidi Washery, Hazaribag. The respondents proceeded in an ex-parte manner when the employee did not respond to the notices and passed the order of termination from service vide Annexure-7 issued by the same respondent No. 4 dated 20.9.2004, of course after sending a copy of the inquiry report along with second show cause notice on his permanent address. However, petitioner on her own, being the widow of the employee, made a representation against the proposed action vide Annexure-4 & 6 dated 14.7.2003 and 29.9.2003 respectively. 3. Respondents in their counter affidavit have also annexed the copy of the inquiry proceeding along with the report where the petitioner is shown to have been examined on her appearance. She had stated that her husband was missing and she had no information about him. Petitioner, thereafter instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 124 of 2009 after 7 years of the missing of the employee with a prayer for declaration of Civil Death of her husband along with a prayer for death cum retirement benefits and cost of the suit. The said suit was decreed on 13.7.2012 on contest without any cost. Accordingly, the declaration of the Civil Death of Vinod Oraon, husband of the plaintiff was made from the date of filing of the suit. The said suit was decreed on 13.7.2012 on contest without any cost. Accordingly, the declaration of the Civil Death of Vinod Oraon, husband of the plaintiff was made from the date of filing of the suit. The decree enclosed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition and also part of the counter affidavit shows that the respondent authorities of the C.C.L were impleaded as defendants and had contested the suit as well. Thereafter, the petitioner made a prayer for compassionate appointment of her son on 5.7.2013 (Annexure-11), which has been declined by the impugned order dated 2.11.2013(Annexure-12), issued by the respondent No. 4, Project Officer, Gidi Washery, Hazaribag on the ground that the employee had been terminated from service before institution of the suit. Petitioner has therefore challenged the rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment, annexure-12, apart from the order of termination at Annexure-7 dated 20.9.2004. 4. Grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner are that the entire proceeding based on the charge of unauthorized absence of the employee leading to his termination is non-est in the eye of law as he had gone missing and declaration of Civil Death has also been made by the competent Court having civil jurisdiction to that effect. It is submitted that after the decree being passed, petitioner has made a claim for compassionate appointment of her son within 1 and 1/2 year from such declaration, which is permissible as per the time stipulated for considering matters of compassionate appointment on the death of an employee in harness. Petitioner's husband should be treated as having died in harness on the date he went missing in view of the declaration made by the learned Civil Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical circumstances, this Court has been pleased to quash the order of termination in the case of an employee under the same respondent- C.C.L namely Lal Mohan Prasad, whose widow approached this Court in W.P.S. No. 7438 of 2013 vide judgment dated 13.7.2015. It is submitted that the rejection of the claim of compassionate appointment on the same ground in the said writ petition was also quashed with a direction to reconsider the issue in accordance with law. 6. It is submitted that the rejection of the claim of compassionate appointment on the same ground in the said writ petition was also quashed with a direction to reconsider the issue in accordance with law. 6. Respondents are represented through their counsel and based upon contents in the counter affidavit, they have justified the order of termination on the ground that on unauthorized absence of the employee, a detailed domestic inquiry was held on the issuance of charge-sheet dated 8.7.2003 and after due compliance of the principal of natural justice by sending copy of the second show cause and the inquiry report also on his permanent address, the order of termination has been passed. They however accepted that the petitioner- widow had also appeared in the said proceeding in which the unauthorized absence of the employee was found to be established, which led to the termination of the employee. It is submitted that the respondent- company under their relevant scheme do not recognize the cases of Civil Death for being a ground for grant of compassionate appointment. The termination of the petitioner's husband remaining intact, the declaration of Civil Death made by the learned Civil Court would have no effect on the order of termination passed on 20.9.2004. Learned counsel for the respondent- State submits that such claim for compassionate appointment is not tenable in law as well as on facts. Petitioner's husband cannot be treated as having died in harness on his termination from service. Therefore, the respondents have rejected the claim for compassionate appointment also. 7. Having given anxious thought to the statements of the parties in the canvas of the material facts noticed here in above, it appears that the case of the petitioner is more or less similar to the case of Munni Devi Vrs Central Coalfields Limited & others in W.P.S. No. 7438 of 2013, in which petitioner's husband also went missing on 5.6.2003 while working as piece rated worker at Kargali Washery under the respondent- C.C.L and in respect of the missing a 'Sanha' was also lodged by her on 24.8.2003. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bermo at Tenughat in Title Suit No. 1 of 2011 instituted for declaration of Civil Death of her husband, decreed the said suit on contest after it was found that the employee had been missing for the last 7 years. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bermo at Tenughat in Title Suit No. 1 of 2011 instituted for declaration of Civil Death of her husband, decreed the said suit on contest after it was found that the employee had been missing for the last 7 years. In the said case also the employee had been terminated from service after the departmental inquiry initiated for unauthorized absence. The judgment rendered in the said case also relied upon the ratio laid down in by this Court in the case of Bijay Kumar Pradhan Vrs. State of Jharkhand & others in W.P.s. No. 3956 of 2011 vide judgment dated 26.9.2013 where it was held that there is no difference between Civil Death and Natural Death. Taking note of all such attendant facts, not only the order of termination of the employee was quashed as the entire departmental proceeding did not have any meaning in the eye of law on the declaration of Civil Death of such employee by the competent Court. At the same time it was also held that employee would be treated to be on the roll of the company on the date he went missing. It was also held that the claim for compassionate appointment made by the said petitioner was also maintainable after declaration of Civil Death by the learned Civil Court. The employee would be treated to have died in harness on the date of his missing. Respondents were also directed in the said case to reconsider the claim for compassionate appointment holding that the scheme in vogue under the respondent- company would not override the judgment rendered by this Court on the question that there is no difference between Civil Death and Natural Death. 8. In the instant case, as has also been found, the departmental proceeding leading to the termination of the employee would have no meaning in the eye of law once the declaration was made on the Civil Death of the employee by the competent Court after institution of the suit, 7 years from the date of missing. Therefore, such ex-parte proceeding leading to the termination of the petitioner's husband from service cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore, such ex-parte proceeding leading to the termination of the petitioner's husband from service cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Petitioner seems to have also made the application for compassionate appointment within 1 year from the date of declaration of Civil Death by the learned Civil Court, which is well within the permissible period of 1 and 1/2 year reckoned for the purpose of making an application for compassionate appointment by the dependent of the deceased. Therefore rejection of the claim of compassionate appointment on the grounds of termination of the employee in question also cannot be sustained in the eye of law in view of the reasons and discussions made herein above. The facts of the present case are covered by the ratio laid down in the case of Munni Devi (Supra) as the relevant material facts were more or less similar to the present case. The impugned order of termination of the petitioner's husband dated 20.9.2004(Annexure-7) as also the rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment dated 2.11.2013(Annexure-12), both issued by the respondent No. 4, Project Officer, Gidi Washery, Hazaribag are accordingly quashed. 9. Respondents would now take a decision on the claim of compassionate appointment of the son of the petitioner in accordance with law. Needless to say that the petitioner would also be at liberty to raise her grievances, if not redressed, relating to the death cum retirement dues of the employee. Let such decision relating to the claim for compassionate appointment be made on reconsideration within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 10. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner.