Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1172 (JHR)

Kiran Kumari v. Central Coalfield Limited

2017-07-17

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the letter dated 04.04.2011 passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby and where under the claim of the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground after the death of her brother in harness has been rejected. A further prayer has been made to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in view of the guidelines mentioned in Para 9.5.0 in N.C.W.A. 6 being the dependent of the deceased. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being the dependent of her deceased brother is eligible for being appointed on compassionate ground in the respondent-company. It has been stated that there can be no discrimination between a male dependent and a female dependent with respect to grant of compassionate appointment. Learned counsel submits that Rule 9.5.0 of N.C.W.A. 6 is discriminatory in nature as the same has prevented the petitioner for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground being the unmarried sister of the deceased. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner being unmarried sister of the deceased Rajendra Oraon was not considered as there is no provision in the N.C.W.A. to consider giving appointment on compassionate ground to an unmarried sister of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that Para 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A. does not include an unmarried sister and since the N.C.W.A is a settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act and is binding the claim of the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground had rightly been rejected. 5. The fact of the case reveals that the brother of the petitioner was an employee under the respondent-company and was working as a Category-1 employee in Dakra Projected of N.K. Area. The brother of the petitioner had expired while in service on 16.05.2010 and as per service record he was left with one dependent namely Kiran Kumari his unmarried sister who is the petitioner in the present case. However, the petitioner had submitted an application for compassionate ground which on being examined was rejected by the competent authority and which is under challenge in the present case. 6. However, the petitioner had submitted an application for compassionate ground which on being examined was rejected by the competent authority and which is under challenge in the present case. 6. 9.3.2 covers employment to a dependent of a worker who dies while in service. The category of persons were eligible for being appointment has been mentioned in Clause 9.3.3 which includes a wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no direct dependent is available employment may be considered of a brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased. 7. Therefore, dependent for the purpose of being provided compassionate appointment does not include an unmarried sister. Nothing has been clarified by the respondents as to why an unmarried sister has been excluded from the precincts of the definition of a dependent but it has also to be seen that N.C.W.A being binding in nature the same cannot have elasticity to widen the definition and scope as the same may open a Pandora''s Box as persons being indirectly dependent on the employee and not covered within the term dependent may start agitating their grievance in case of death of the employee. The provisions of N.C.W.A. has to be resultantly construed and when an unmarried sister does not come within the definition of a dependent the term dependent cannot be stretched so as to include an unmarried sister also within its purview. 8. The authority had, therefore, on consideration of the provisions of N.C.W.A rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner and this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order and, therefore, this writ application sans merit and is, hereby, dismissed.