Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 511 (JHR)

Rajan v. Central Coalfields Limited

2017-03-10

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. In the instant case, the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court for the following reliefs:- i. for quashing of the letter dated 31.02.2014 by which application for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondent-C.C.L. ii. for appointment on compassionate ground of the petitioner being direct dependent of the deceased brother who died in harness in service period on 29.07.2000. Factual matrix 2. The petitioner is the legal brother of late Nageshwar Kumar Mallah Ex. Mining Sardar Trade B & K Area Colliery, Central Coalfields Limited and his name is already entered as direct dependent in the service book of the deceased employee i.e. brother of the petitioner. As late Nageshwar Kumar Mallah (deceased) was unmarried, the name of the survivors as a direct dependent left behind by the deceased entered in the family relation record of office as well as certificate issued by B.D.O., Bermo. It is further stated that petitioner's brother late Nageshwar Kumar Mallah was employed as Ex-Mining Sardar Trade B & K Area during the service period. Late Nageshwar Kumar Mallah fell ill and his case was forwarded/recommended for treatment outside as he was suffering from Ca lung (Rt) upper lobe advance stage but before moving for treatment he expired in the service period on 29.07.2000. It is the case of the petitioner that after his death he made a representation before the Project Officer, Kargli U.G. on 09.02.2001 for appointment on compassionate ground under N.C.W.A. in place of deceased unmarried brother who died in harness on 29.07.2000. Due to sudden demise of late Nageshwar Kumar Mallah, the entire family fell in great financial trouble as there was no earning member, therefore, a request was made through representation for appointment on compassionate ground annexing the certificates issued by the Block Development Officer, Bermo, Bokaro which reflected the name of petitioner as the direct dependent of deceased Nageshwar Kumar Mallah. The Deputy Chief Mining Engineer/Principal BTTI Bhurkunda sent a letter to the General Manager (HRD) and ( P & IR), C.C.L. giving the entire details of late Nageshwar Kumar Mallah stating therein that he was appointed under special Fimale VRS dated 20.03.1999 in place of his mother Smt. Savitri Kamin Ex category I of Dhori Colliery and posted at BTTI Bhurkunda. Nageshwar Kumar Mallah submitted his joining report at BTTI Bhurkunda on 12.04.1999 which was accepted on the same date. Nageshwar Kumar Mallah submitted his joining report at BTTI Bhurkunda on 12.04.1999 which was accepted on the same date. Consequently he was allotted Mining Sirdar's trade on 21.04.2000 and the service sheet of Nageshwar Kumar Mallah was also opened at BTTI but unfortunately he died in harness on 29.07.2000. Though the petitioner had made several representations before the respondent-authorities but in spite of the recommendations no steps were taken for providing employment on compassionate ground under the provisions of N.C.W.A. 3. Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a provision under N.C.W.A. for appointment to the direct dependent on compassionate ground in case of death in harness. Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to Chapter IX Social Security of which 9.3.3. of the N.C.W.A. defines the dependent family members as below:- "9.3.3. Dependent means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependent is available for employment; 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 may be considered to be the dependents of the deceased." 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that several persons have been appointed in view of the provision of 9.3.3. and he refers the name of Damru Tanti brother of Arun Tanti and in the case of Fulendra v. Central Coalfields Limited the Hon'ble High Court has passed order on 31.02.2014 and the case is similarly situated to aforesaid case and is squarely covered. 5. Mr. A.K. Das assisted by Miss. Puja Kumari appears on behalf of the respondent C.C.L. Learned Counsel for the C.C.L. draws the attention of the Court towards paragraph Nos. 41,42 and 43 of the counter-affidavit and submits that the names of the persons stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner stands on different footing as they were permanent employee of C.C.L. as well as late Nageshwar Kumar Mallah never attained the character of a permanent employee of the company and was appointed as a trainee only on a consolidated stipend of Rs.2500/- and as such the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 6. 6. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and going through the several averments made in the counter-affidavit, this Court is of the view that the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is not well founded and is not in consonance with the averment made in the counter-affidavit and also of the considered view that petitioner's case deserved to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground on the following facts and reasons:- i. the petitioner was appointed as a trainee and it was specifically mentioned in clause No.1 that the management may put in regular pay scale or else extend the period of training for another one year if conduct is not adjudged upto the mark. In clause No.4 it is mentioned that petitioner would be governed by the service conditions of the standing order application on C.C.L. employees. 7. From these two clauses, it is clear that in the tenure of the appointment, no allegations were levelled against the petitioner and there was no occasion for extension of the training period as late Nageshwar Kumar Mallah died subsequently on 29.07.2000. As the service conditions of the standing order applicable on C.C.L. employees after his death, 9.3.3. fully applies and the direct dependent of the family i.e. the petitioner is fully entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Respondents themselves have mentioned in paragraph No.34 of the counter-affidavit that in terms of relevant provision of compassionate appointment under N.C.W.A., the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment falls for consideration only in the event if no direct dependent was available for employment and further he was residing with and was dependent upon earnings of the deceased employee. From the representation of the petitioner and the certificates issued by the B.D.O. as mentioned in service book it is very clear that late Nageshwar Kumar Mallah was unmarried and the petitioner is the direct dependent and as such he deserves to be appointed on compassionate ground. 8. Be that as it may, as it is an admitted fact that late Nageshwar Kumar Mallah was governed by the service conditions of the standing order applicable on C.C.L. employees, the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 9. 8. Be that as it may, as it is an admitted fact that late Nageshwar Kumar Mallah was governed by the service conditions of the standing order applicable on C.C.L. employees, the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 9. The Apex Court in the case of "Canara Bank v. M.Mahesh Kumar", reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 held: “Law with regard to employment on compassionate ground for dependants of a deceased employee is well settled. In Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, this Court held as thus (SCC p. 470, para 9) Para 9 "We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. The settled law which has been reiterated in various cases has been succinctly elucidated in MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh wherein it was observed that compassionate appointment cannot be granted as of right and the application to be decided as expeditiously as possible." 10. As cumulative effect of the aforesaid Rules, Guidelines, circulars and the judicial pronouncements, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.