Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1609 (JHR)

Dilip v. Central Coalfields Limited

2017-09-06

DHIRUBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2017
JUDGMENT : DHIRUBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL, J. 1. When the matter is called out counsel for the appellant is absent. 2. We have heard the counsel for the respondents at length. It is submitted by counsel for the respondents that original petitioner, had preferred writ petition, bearing W.P. (S) No. 2013 of 2014, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 28th September, 2015 and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present letters patent appeal. 3. It is submitted by counsel for the respondents that father of the original petitioner has expired on 2.2.2001. Thereafter, application for compassionate was preferred by this appellant (original petitioner) on 10.10.2001, which was rejected vide order dated 13th March 2002 and the writ petition has been preferred in the year 2014 and hence, there is gross delay in preferring the writ petition. It is further submitted by counsel for the respondents that the very purpose of the compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now. It is further submitted by counsel for the respondents that in the service excerpts, the name of this appellant (original petitioner) was never inserted. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. 4. It has further submitted by counsel for the respondents that the name of this appellant (original petitioner) appears in a comments column of the service sheet, but, the same was never inserted in the service book of the father of this appellant. Even Screening Committee has appreciated this aspect of the matter and the claim of this appellant was rejected on 13th March, 2002. The name of this appellant has also not been mentioned as a nominee for Coal Mines Provident Fund amount. Thus, it appears that there is need of succession certificate in favour of this appellant, as neither the name of this appellant has been mentioned in the service book of the deceased employee of the respondent nor he can get any amount of the Coal Mines Provident Fund, because, he is not the nominee at all, for the said purposes. Thus, it appears that there is need of succession certificate in favour of this appellant, as neither the name of this appellant has been mentioned in the service book of the deceased employee of the respondent nor he can get any amount of the Coal Mines Provident Fund, because, he is not the nominee at all, for the said purposes. Even, there is a discrepancy in the nomination of the Coal Mines Provident Fund, the name of the wife of the deceased is mentioned as Jhunia Devi, whereas, nomination appears to be in the name of Etwari Devi, so far as Coal Mines Provident Fund amount is concerned. Thus, such type of persons, who are claiming to be a legal heir, when in the document, their names are not clearly mentioned as a legal heirs, ought to have obtained succession certificate. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, this letters patent appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 5. Having heard counsel for the respondents and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts: (i) The name of this appellant is not mentioned in the service book of the deceased employee Roop Lal No. 2. (ii) Roop Lal No. 2, who was serving with the respondents expired on 02.2.2001, thereafter, application for compassionate appointment was preferred by this appellant on 10.10.2001 and the committee constituted by the respondents had rejected the claim of this appellant on 13th March, 2002 and writ petition was preferred by this appellant being W.P.(S) No. 2013 of 2014, after lapse of a period of more than one decade. The very purpose of the compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now. The compassionate appointment cannot be claimed by this appellant as a matter of right. (iii) The compassionate appointment is an exception to Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. It is given only with a view to give support immediately to the family of the deceased, but, whenever the family of the deceased has survived for more than one decade, so called right to get the compassionate appointment comes to an end. (iii) The compassionate appointment is an exception to Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. It is given only with a view to give support immediately to the family of the deceased, but, whenever the family of the deceased has survived for more than one decade, so called right to get the compassionate appointment comes to an end. (iv) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Paras Nath, reported in (1998) 2 SCC 412 , in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5, as under:- "4. Seventeen years after the death of his father, the respondent, on 8-1-1986, made an application for being appointed to the post of a Primary School Teacher under the said Rules. His application was rejected. He, thereafter, filed a writ petition before the High Court. This writ petition was allowed by the High Court and an appeal from the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence the State has filed the present appeal. 5. The purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are) permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant, None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case." (Emphasis supplied) (v) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 112 in paragraph No. 20, as under:- "20. The principles indicated above would give a clear indication that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right Which can be exercised at any time in future. The principles indicated above would give a clear indication that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right Which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over." (Emphasis supplied) (vi) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 in paragraph No. 15, as under: - "15. Now it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate appointment has been recognised as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve. " (Emphasis supplied) (vii) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, reported (2014) 13 SCC 583 , in paragraph No. 6, as under:- ''6. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Ah exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread earner . Mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. Ah exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its bread earner . Mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years." (Emphasis supplied) (viii) It further appears from the facts of the case that in the service records of the deceased employee, namely. Roop Lal No. 2, the name of this appellant was never mentioned as a son of the deceased employee. Only reference which was made to this appellant was in a comments column. This comments column is not a service book at all. Such type of claims are to be verified by the respondents and the committee constituted by the respondents, which is known as Screening Committee, has rejected the claim of the respondents on 13th March, 2002. Moreover, the name of this appellant has also not been mentioned as nominee of the deceased employee Roop Lal No. 2, for getting Coal Mines Provident Fund amount, nor the name of this appellant was mentioned as a nominee to get any type of retirement benefits. Thus, whenever such type of situation has arisen, the claimant ought to get succession certificate from the competent trial court and thereafter only he can get the benefit on the basis of the death of the employee of the respondents. Thus, whenever such type of situation has arisen, the claimant ought to get succession certificate from the competent trial court and thereafter only he can get the benefit on the basis of the death of the employee of the respondents. (ix) It further appears from the facts of the case that the name of wife of the deceased employee is Jhunia Devi, whereas name of some Etwari Devi has been mentioned as a nominee to get the benefit of Coal Mines Provident Fund amount. Thus Roop Lal No. 2 has two Devis and they are also claiming Coal Mines Provident Fund amount. The name of so called son is also not mentioned in the service record. All these persons should approach the trial court for getting succession certificate, otherwise they will not be entitled to get any benefit because of death of Roop Lal No. 2. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing W.P.(S) No. 2013 of 2014 vide judgment and order dated 28th September, 2015. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing W.P.(S) No. 2013 of 2014 vide judgment and order dated 28th September, 2015 and we see no reason to take any other view to what is taken by the learned single judge and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, dismissed.