Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 733 (JHR)

Kumari Asha Chauhan v. Central Coalfields Limited

2017-04-21

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:- For quashing of letters dated 3.7.2012 and 19.07.2012 (passed by respondents no.3 and 7 respectively) whereby and whereunder the application for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground in place of her mother in law (ex-employee) has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision for appointment of indirect dependents in presence of direct dependents and is further directed for an issuance of an appropriate writ/writs directing upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner in place of her deceased mother in law who died in harness. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The mother-in-law of the petitioner, namely, Kaushalya Kamin was working as Lady Security Guard at Tapin North Colliery, Hazaribagh Area of C.C.L. who died on 12.06.2001. Soon after the death of her mother-in-law, the husband of the petitioner namely Satyendra Kumar applied for appointment in place of his mother on compassionate ground but the same was rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 16.06.2002 on the ground of double employment stating therein that no employment can be accorded to the applicant as his father is already in service of CCL at Rajrappa project and therefore such claim in place of mother is not tenable under clause 9.3.2. of the National Coal Wage Agreement VI. The husband of the petitioner also died on 25.04.2003 leaving behind a daughter on the sole responsibility of the petitioner with no one to care for them. The father in law of the petitioner although in service of CCL, Rajrappa did not take care of the petitioner and her daughter and she was constrained to move to her father's place. After the death of the husband, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in place of her mother in law on 04.02.2008 under clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA (IV) but no heed was paid. On several occasions, the petitioner represented before the respondents for considering her for employment on compassionate ground but the same went in vain as it was never considered. The father of the petitioner also got superannuated on 2008 and since then it became difficult for him to maintain the petitioner and her daughter. The petitioner did not get any financial support from her father in law too and he also retired on 31.05.2008 from his services and never took care of the petitioner and her daughter. The father of the petitioner also got superannuated on 2008 and since then it became difficult for him to maintain the petitioner and her daughter. The petitioner did not get any financial support from her father in law too and he also retired on 31.05.2008 from his services and never took care of the petitioner and her daughter. The petitioner came across an article in connection with employment in CCL published in the local newspaper, The said article stated that the applications for employment on compassionate ground which were initially denied on the ground of double employment between the period, 1999 to September, 2007 shall be taken into consideration by the CCL authorities. Pursuant to the publication of the said article, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground in place of her mother-in-law, stating all the above mentioned facts but no heed was paid. 3. It is the case of petitioner that time and again the petitioner represented before the authorities of CCL for considering her case and also represented before the respondent no.2 for the same on 30.08.2011 along with requisite documents. After several representations have been made by the petitioner for several years, finally she was considered for employment and was asked by respondent no.6 vide letter dated 14.02.2012 to submit relevant documents so that her case for appointment on compassionate ground can be considered. In pursuance to letter dated 14.02.2012 the petitioner submitted all the relevant documents as required vide letter dated 20.02.2012 to the respondent. When no intimation was made from the office of the Project Officer, the petitioner thereafter again represented before the respondent no.2 for considering her appointment in place of her mother in law and in view of the article published in the newspaper vide letter dated 18.06.2012. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that vide letter dated 03.07.2012 addressed to the respondent No.6, came to know that her claim for appointment in place of her mother-in-law on compassionate ground, has been rejected on the sole ground that in the presence of direct dependents, no employment can be extended to the indirect dependents under Clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA-VI. The said fact was also intimated to the petitioner vide letter dated 19.07.2012. Hence, this writ application has been filed. 5. The said fact was also intimated to the petitioner vide letter dated 19.07.2012. Hence, this writ application has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the only dependent as out of the six children, the son of the petitioner already died on 25.04.2003 and all the five daughters have been married. It is submitted that since all the five daughters of the deceased employee has been married therefore, in that view of the matter, no direct dependent is left to be considered for employment, save and except the petitioner, who is widowed daughter-in-law of the deceased employee. It is also stated that respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner on an arbitrary ground in view of the fact that when no direct dependent is present to be considered for employment then the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground in absence of any direct dependent. 6. Learned counsel further argues that as per Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-VI, the petitioner being the widowed daughter-in-law of the deceased employee, is entitled for compassionate employment when no direct dependent is available for giving appointment. 7. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents strenuously argues that petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground in place of his mother-in-law (deceased employee) as there is no provision for appointment of indirect dependents in presence of direct dependents. It is also submitted that petitioner is claiming appointment on compassionate ground in place of deceased mother-in-law namely, Kaushalya Kamin, who died in harness on 12.06.2001 itself. Learned counsel further argues that compassionate appointment is always an individual claim, the petitioner applied for the first time in the year 2009 i.e. after 8 years of the death of her mother-in-law which itself is a ground for rejection of her case. No appointment can be given after lapse of time. Therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contention has relied upon decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Naresh Tanwar & Anr. reported in [1996] 8 SCC page 23 and has also relied upon decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in case of Shri Shanker Nunia Vs. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contention has relied upon decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Naresh Tanwar & Anr. reported in [1996] 8 SCC page 23 and has also relied upon decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in case of Shri Shanker Nunia Vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. reported in 2004 (1) JCR-680 (Jhr) wherein it has been held that compassionate appointment after reasonable period is not permissible. 10. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment for the following reasons : I. The mother-in-law died in the year 2001 itself and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment for the first time in the year 2009 which itself suffers from gross delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 that “compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of reasonable period and the very purpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception to the general rule of open recruitment, is intended to meet the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased employee.” II. There is no provision for appointment on compassionate ground to indirect dependents when the direct dependents is available. III. The case of the petitioner is not covered by NCWA and as such is fit to be dismissed. 11. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, legal proposition and judicial pronouncements, I find no error in the impugned orders dated 3.7.2012 and 19.07.2012 passed by respondents nos.3 and 7 respectively. 12. The writ petition requires no interference and resultantly, it stands dismissed.