Kiran Kumari, D/o Late Bajo Ram @ Baijo Ram v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
2016-05-12
ANANDA SEN
body2016
DigiLaw.ai
Order : Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the B.C.C.L. 2. The petitioner in the writ application has challenged the order dated 17.7.2015 by which she has been asked to obtain succession certificate from the competent court to facilitate granting her compassionate appointment. 3. Leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned letter is absolutely illegal and there is no justification in issuing the said order on the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that succession certificate cannot be sought for granting compassionate appointment. He further submits that she is the only unmarried daughter of the deceased and this fact has not been disputed in the impugned notice. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the B.C.C.L submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner is the daughter or the only unmarried daughter as such, this impugned order has been issued. 5. I have gone through the impugned order. The impugned order reads as under: “With reference to letter no. 838 dated 26/27.6.2015 issued by Chief Manager (P) P.B. Area as per instruction of the competent authority. “The daughter of deceased employee may be asked to submit succession certificate from the competent court.” The instructions given by the competent authority may humbly be complied with.” 6. From the impugned order, it is apparent that for considering the case of the petitioner on compassionate appointment, succession certificate has been sought for. The BCCL authorities intends to rely on the certificate to ascertain the relationship between the claimant and the deceased or the genuinity of the claimant. 7. It is undisputed that workmen, namely, Baju Ram was an employee of BCCL who died in harness on 6.2.2013. This petitioner claims to be the sole unmarried daughter, who has filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment. National Coal Wage Agreement provides for grant of compassionate appointment to the unmarried daughter. Annexure 8 is a letter written to the Project Officer/Personnel Executive of Simlabahal Colliery by the Chief Manager (Personnel), P.B. Area BCCL wherein a copy of the verification report of the BDO and certificate of police verification was asked for.
National Coal Wage Agreement provides for grant of compassionate appointment to the unmarried daughter. Annexure 8 is a letter written to the Project Officer/Personnel Executive of Simlabahal Colliery by the Chief Manager (Personnel), P.B. Area BCCL wherein a copy of the verification report of the BDO and certificate of police verification was asked for. From the record it is apparent that BCCL has sought for a report from the police and BDO in respect of this petitioner as to whether she is a daughter of the deceased employee or not and if so, whether she is the sole unmarried daughter. The BDO report has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure 6 of the writ application wherein it has been certified that certificate bearing no.305 dated 179.2013 has been issued by the office of the BDO. This certificate no.305 dated 17.9.2013 is annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ application which suggests that after verification it was found that Kiran Kumari is the only daughter of the deceased and is the sole heir and on the date of issuance of the certificate is unmarried. 8. A succession certified is issued under Chapter X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Banarsi Dass vs. Teeku Dutta [ (2005) 4 SCC 449 ] has held that the main object of a succession certificate is to facilitate collection of debts on succession and afford protection to the parties paying debts to the representatives of deceased persons. 10. Further it has been held the grant of a certificate does not establish a title of the grantee as the heir of the deceased, but only furnishes him with authority to collect his debts and allows the debtors to make payments to him without incurring any risk. 11. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.K. Prahalada vs. State of Karnataka [ (2008) 15 SCC 577 ] inter alia has held that by obtaining a succession certificate alone, a person does not become the owner of the property. 12. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Chhattisgarh and others vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar [ (2009) 13 SCC 600 ] in paragraph 22 has held that a succession certificate can be granted in favour of any person. It may be granted to an heir or a nominee.
12. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Chhattisgarh and others vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar [ (2009) 13 SCC 600 ] in paragraph 22 has held that a succession certificate can be granted in favour of any person. It may be granted to an heir or a nominee. By reason of grant of such certificate, a person in whose favour succession certificate is granted becomes a trustee to distribute the amount payable by the deceased to his heirs and legal representatives. He does not derive any right thereunder. The succession certificate merely enabled him to collect the dues of the deceased. No status was conferred on him thereby. It did not prove any relationship between the deceased and the applicant. 13. From the aforesaid decision it is clear that a succession certificate is not a document to substantiate genuinity of a person, nor it confers any status upon him nor does prove any relationship. In that view of the matter on the facts of this case, the order of BCCL is bad. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.5 to consider the case of the petitioner without insisting for any succession certificate. The Project Officer should consider the case of the petitioner relying on the document furnished by the petitioner and the documents collected by the respondent during enquiry. The respondent will pass a reasoned order as per law, circular and as per NCWA on the merit of the case of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the respondent authority finds that the petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment, appointment letter will be issued to the petitioner within a month thereafter. 14. With the aforesaid direction, this writ application stands disposed of.