Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 941 (JHR)

Purni Debi v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

2016-06-20

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, VIRENDER SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. I. A No. 2907/2016 For the reasons carved out in the application and there being delay of 90 days in filing the accompanied appeal, to which counsel for the respondents has not raised any serious objection, the said delay stands condoned. I. A No. 2907/2016 is accordingly allowed. L.P.A No. 225 of 2016 Heard learned counsel for both the sides. 2. While declining the claim of the appellant-writ petitioners (hereinafter to be referred to as petitioners) for compassionate appointment being a stale matter, with regard to monetary benefits, the learned Writ Court has given liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority of respondent-C.C.L (Project Officer, Ara Colliery, Mandu, Ramgarh) for according consideration to the same in accordance with law. Assailing the impugned judgment,Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioners were entitled to compassionate appointment, as all the pending applications for compassionate appointments including the application of the petitioner were to be dealt with in accordance with clause 9.3.2 and 9.4.0 of N.C.W.A. He submitted that the application submitted by the petitioners remained pending before the respondent-C.C.L. and at one stage, finding certain defects a communication was also sent to the petitioners on 25.2.2004 to remove the said defects, which were removed, but despite that their case for compassionate appointment was not considered by the respondent-C.C.L. According to Mr. Rajesh Kumar, since the matter got delayed at the end of respondent-C.C.L. only, it should not have been rejected by the learned writ court on the ground that it was not tenable after such length of time, which argument is refuted by Mr. Rajesh Lala appearing for the respondents. He however states that he is not aware as to whether any application moved by the petitioners was not considered by C.C.L. 3. Be that as it may. In case any application submitted by the petitioners is still pending consideration with respondent-C.C.L since 2004, as stated by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, it requires to be accorded consideration by passing an order, positive or adverse. Viewed such the view taken by the learned Writ Court that the claim for compassionate appointment is not tenable after considerable length of time deserves to be disturbed. Ordered accordingly. 4. Rajesh Kumar, it requires to be accorded consideration by passing an order, positive or adverse. Viewed such the view taken by the learned Writ Court that the claim for compassionate appointment is not tenable after considerable length of time deserves to be disturbed. Ordered accordingly. 4. Respondent-C.C.L is thus directed to look into the application/representation of the petitioners pending before it for compassionate appointment expeditiously, if not decided till date, preferably within four weeks from the date copy of the order is conveyed, making it clear that in the event of rejection of their case for compassionate appointment, claim for monetary compensation shall however be considered on their fresh representation in accordance with law by respondent No.5 as directed by learned Writ Court. 5. At this stage, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel invites our attention to the death certificate of the deceased employee and submits that the respondent-C.C.L. has not only ignored its own Agreement (N.C.W.A), it treated the deceased and his family members with cruelty which warrants an order of compensation to the petitioners. The present case has a very disturbing feature. Late Bhikhwa Munda, who was working as coal cutter in Ara Colliery, Kuju Area, Ramgarh, under respondent-C.C.L, had developed ailment of ‘Tuberculosis’, and was admitted in Ramkrishna Mission Sanatorium for his treatment on 03.06.1994. He died in that Sanatorium on 31.08.1994 and message was sent by the concerned authority of that hospital/Sanatorium to respondent-C.C.L with regard to the death of the employee but respondent-C.C.L did not bother to even take the custody of the deadbody for handing it over to his family members and that is the reason that he was cremated on 02.09.1994 in the Sanatorium itself. What an inhuman approach at the end of the respondent-C.C.L. Such action by an employer really disturbs the conscience of the Court and the answer to the cry of justice comes that respondent-C.C.L deserves to be penalized for this action. The Death Certificate dated 02.09.1994 is an official document and it was part of the writ proceedings. This aspect escaped the notice of the learned Writ Court. It discloses gross violation of Human Rights. The Death Certificate dated 02.09.1994 is an official document and it was part of the writ proceedings. This aspect escaped the notice of the learned Writ Court. It discloses gross violation of Human Rights. The petitioners were deprived of performing even the last rites of their bread earner, due to inhuman act on the part of the respondent C.C.L. We, thus, impose a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on respondent-C.C.L and to be paid to the family members of the deceased within two weeks from today so that in future respondent-C.C.L does not ignore its moral obligation being a model employer. Let it be a wake-up call for the respondent-C.C.L. for future. 6. Disposed of.