Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 749 (JHR)

Sita Bai Devi v. The Central Coalfields Limited

2017-04-21

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
ORDER S.N. Pathak, J. - By way of this instant application, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to provide employment under 9.4.0 of N.C.W.A to Deepak Kumar (Ghar-Jamai son-in-law of the petitioner) after quashing the letter dated 05/08.12.2016 passed by respondent no.5 (Annexure 7). Factual Matrix 2. The petitioner was an employee of M/s. C.C.L working as Category-II in Tapin Project and entered into service under 9.4.0 of NCWA after death of her husband. It has been stated that the petitioner was suffering from paralysis and was under treatment in C.C.L Hospital and, as such, she was unable to perform her normal duty. Thereafter, she was referred by the respondents to Medical Board through letter dated 01.09.2013. On 14.09.2015 at 11.00 a.m she appeared before the Area Level Medical Board and they referred the petitioner''s case to the Central Medical Board. On 20.12.2013 at 10.00 a.m the petitioner appeared before the Central Hospital, Nai Sarai, CCL where she was declared unfit for job under the provision of 9.4.0 of NCWA from 31.12.2013. Further the case of the petitioner is that one Deepak Kumar son of Anant Ram, resident of village Shankarpur, Katkamsandi, Hazaribag, married with her younger daughter Lalti Kumari on 12.07.2008, which is registered under Hindu Marriage Act and was living with the petitioner as Ghar Jamai, since his marriage. It is the case of the petitioner that she has six daughters and all were married but only younger daughter Lalti Devi and her husband Deepak is living with her as Ghar Jamai and fully dependent upon the petitioner. Son-in-law of the petitioner, Deepak Kumar, passed matric and certificates were issued by the Jharkhand Academic Board. After declaring medically fit for job, the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment to her son-in-law (Ghar Jamai) under 9.4.0 of NCWA and the respondents no. 7 directed the petitioner to appear before the interview Committee on 15.03.2014 at 11.00 a.m with all the family members and with all requisite documents. The petitioner visited the office of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 but after lapses of 2 and half years no action has been taken by the respondents for issuance of appointment letter to the son-in-law of the petitioner who is fully dependent upon the petitioner and entitled for appointment under 9.4.0 of NCWA . 3. Mr. The petitioner visited the office of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 but after lapses of 2 and half years no action has been taken by the respondents for issuance of appointment letter to the son-in-law of the petitioner who is fully dependent upon the petitioner and entitled for appointment under 9.4.0 of NCWA . 3. Mr. N.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is moving from pillar to post and has approached on several occasions to respondent nos. 6 and 7 since 2014 and also filed several applications for compassionate appointment for her son-in-law, but till date no order has been passed neither any action has been taken. It is further argued that the petitioner is member of schedule caste and landless person and wholly dependent on service and has been declared medically unfit for job and as per provision of NCWA the dependent son-in-law is entitled for employment under the such policy, but illegally and arbitrarily no appointment has been provided which is violation of natural justice. It has been stated that earlier, the petitioner had moved this Hon''ble Court in W.P.S. 7053 of 2016 for employment to her son-in-law and during the pendency the respondent no.5 has passed an order and communicated to the son-in-law through letter dated 05/08.12.2016 regarding the rejection of case on compassionate ground and, hence, challenging the order of rejection dated 05/08.12.2016 the petitioner has preferred this writ application. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents CCL vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that no case is made out for compassionate appointment and the order dated 5/08.12.2016 is fully justified and, hence, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Be that as it may, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, it is for providing immediate succor to the family. It has to be provided as per the schemes of the rules floated by the concerned department. 5. At the outset, when the case was called out, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in para9 it has wrongly been mentioned that "after declared medically fit for job the petitioner filed an application to the employment to her son-in-law (Ghar Jamai) under 9.4.0 of NCWA in place of medically fit it should be medically unfit". 6. 5. At the outset, when the case was called out, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in para9 it has wrongly been mentioned that "after declared medically fit for job the petitioner filed an application to the employment to her son-in-law (Ghar Jamai) under 9.4.0 of NCWA in place of medically fit it should be medically unfit". 6. In course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents draws the attention of the Court towards 9.4.0 Clause-III which has been specifically mentioned herein below :" "The dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the employee and almost wholly dependent on the earning of the employee may be considered. Insofar as female dependants are concerned, their employment would be governed by the provision of clause 9.5.0." clause IV of 9.4.0 states that: "The dependents to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as given in Clause 9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned there would be age limit regarding provision of employment." 7. It is very clear from bare perusal of clause IV that the dependents to be considered for employment should be physically fit. If the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are accepted, it has to be read medically unfit for job and as per 9.4.0 the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted for compassionate ground. It seems that the petitioner is trying to mislead this Court by making this particular submission. This court is fully satisfied that there is no error in the impugned order and the respondents have rightly rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground for her son-in-law as the petitioner''s son-in-law is not wholly dependent upon the earning of the ex-employee to come within the purview indirect dependent family member for the purpose of seeking compassionate appointment. The petitioners case is not even covered by 9.4.0 clause III or clause IV and as such, this court is of the view that no appointment can be given dehors the rules. The petitioners case is not even covered by 9.4.0 clause III or clause IV and as such, this court is of the view that no appointment can be given dehors the rules. Petitioner''s son-in-law is neither direct dependent or cannot be termed as indirect dependent. No documents have been shown by the petitioner that her son in law is wholly dependent upon petitioner to come within the purview of indirect dependent family member for the purpose of seeking compassionate appointment. In absence of any document to show the bona fide of being an indirect dependent, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and, as such, fit to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.