Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 803 (MP)

Rani v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

2017-07-06

SUJOY PAUL

body2017
ORDER : SHRI SUJOY PAUL, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 4/5.5.2015 Annexure P/7 whereby application preferred by mother of the petitioner seeking appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground is rejected by the respondents. 2. The admitted facts between the parties are that petitioner's father Ajay Barman was a workman in the respondent-colliery. He died in harness. Petitioner's mother preferred an application for grant of compassionate appointment. It came to be dismissed on the ground that as per the scheme of compassionate appointment, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment because direct dependents of the deceased are available. This finding is assailed by Shri S.R. Tamrakar by taking assistance of clause 9.3.0 and 9.3.2 & 3 of the relevant scheme Annexure P/4. 3. Learned counsel for the parties fairly submits that governing provision for the purpose of employment and compensation is contained in Chapter IX (Social Security) (Annexure P/4). 4. Stand of Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents is that a plain reading of clause 9.3.3 makes it clear that the petitioner is not a direct dependent. She being a widowed daughter of the deceased workman is not a "direct dependent". The direct dependents including mother of the petitioner were entitled to get monitory compensation in consonance with clause 9.5.0 of the policy. The said option was given to the petitioner's mother. In view of said provision, petitioner does not have any enforceable right of consideration for compassionate appointment. 5. The parties are at logger heads on the interpretation of clause 9.3.0 and 9.5.0. The relevant portion reads as under: "9.3.0 Provision of Employment to Dependents 9.3.1 Employment would be provided to one dependent of worker who are disabled permanently and also those who die while in service. The provision will be implemented as follows. 9.3.2 Employment to one dependent to the worker who dies while in service In so far as female dependents are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0. 9.3.3 The dependent for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. The provision will be implemented as follows. 9.3.2 Employment to one dependent to the worker who dies while in service In so far as female dependents are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0. 9.3.3 The dependent for this purpose 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 dependent of the deceased. 9.5.0 Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependent Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependents of workmen who die while in service and who are declared medically unfair as per Clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated as under: (i) In case of death of due to mine accident, the female dependent would have the option to either accept the monetary compensation of Rs.4,000/- per month or employment irrespective of her age. (ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to cause of other than mine accident, and medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0., if the female dependent is below the age of 45 years she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs.3,000/- per month or employment. In case of female dependent is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment."(Emphasis supplied) 6. This is also an admitted fact between the parties that although certain direct dependents were available in the family of the deceased, such dependents have crossed the maximum age for the purpose of consideration for compassionate appointment. Clause 9.3.3 is part of clause 9.3.0 and 9.3.2. The aforesaid clauses are described as "provision of employment to dependents" and "employment to one dependent of the worker who dies while in service". A plain reading of 9.3.3 makes it clear that if direct dependents are not available for employment, widowed daughter and other indirect dependents may be considered if they are otherwise eligible. The words used in clause 9.3.3 are "if no such direct dependent is available for employment", brother, widow daughter/widow daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependents on the earning of the deceased may be considered. Thus, availability of direct dependents is to be seen for the purpose of "employment". The words used in clause 9.3.3 are "if no such direct dependent is available for employment", brother, widow daughter/widow daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependents on the earning of the deceased may be considered. Thus, availability of direct dependents is to be seen for the purpose of "employment". Admittedly, direct dependents are available but they are not available for employment because they are over aged. In that case, in my view, the petitioner being a widow daughter-in-law is entitled to be considered if she fulfils other conditions and is otherwise also eligible. 7. So far clause 9.5.0 is concerned, it deals with monitory compensation to female dependents. No doubt, employer can provide this benefit to the female dependents. However, this clause nowhere takes away the right of consideration of compassionate appointment of other eligible candidates whose names fall within the ambit of clause 9.3.3 of the relevant scheme. 8. In this view of the matter, in my view, the respondents have erred in rejecting the claim of petitioner on the ground that because of availability of direct dependents, her case cannot be considered. At the cost of repetition, in my view, the respondents have not read the clause 9.3.3 in its correct spirits. They have only considered the fact that there exists direct dependents without considering the fact whether such direct dependents are available for employment. Thus, the rejection is based on incorrect and misconceived notion. Resultantly, the order dated 4/5.5.2015 Annexure P/7 is set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. If petitioner is otherwise eligible, the respondents shall consider and pass appropriate order on petitioner's claim within 45 days from the date of communication of this order. 9. Petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above.