Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 601 (JHR)

Central Coalfields Limited v. Dinesh Munda

2019-02-28

DEEPAK ROSHAN, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2019
JUDGMENT Chandrashekhar, J. - The appellant-M/s CCL has filed an affidavit dated 16.07.2018 on service of Dasti summons upon the respondent no. 1. In this affidavit the appellant has asserted that Dasti summons has been served upon respondent no. 1, on 11.07.2018. 2. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no. 1. 3. The appellant-M/s Central Coalfields Limited is in appeal against the order dated 16.12.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6384 of 2014 by which a direction has been issued to M/s Central Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as M/s CCL) to take a decision afresh on the claim of the writ-petitioner-respondent no.1 for his appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. The writ-petitioner was younger son of the ex-employee namely, Haluman Munda. 5. Briefly stated, after the death of the employee-Haluman Munda on 21.06.2000 who was employed under M/s CCL his elder son namely, Madan Munda submitted an application on 19.12.2000 for his compassionate appointment. Proposal for his appointment on compassionate ground was forwarded by the Area Officer to the Unit on 22.09.2001 and subsequently, certain clarifications were sought on 09.08.2002. This process continued till 13.01.2004 when a report on verification was called for. By the letters dated 29.04.2004 and 15.06.2004 the claimant-Madan Munda was directed to appear before the Committee, however, he did not appear before the Committee. Further intimation was given to Madan Munda to appear before the Committee, however, he submitted a representation on 24.03.2006 and furnished the indemnity bond on 24.06.2006 after a report was submitted on 07.04.2006. He died on 07.01.2007 before a final decision on his claim for appointment on compassionate ground was taken by the management. Thereafter, widow of the ex-employee has submitted a representation on 10.07.2007 for appointment of her younger son-writ-petitioner. But, the application for appointment of the writ-petitioner was submitted on 20.10.2011. 6. Claim for compassionate appointment of the writ-petitioner was declined by an order dated 23.12.2013. 7. Challenging the impugned order, Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that delay certainly is a ground to decline a claim for compassionate appointment and it is not a vested right in the dependent of the ex-employee to seek compassionate appointment. 8. By now it is well-accepted that compassionate appointment is not a mode of appointment. Challenging the impugned order, Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that delay certainly is a ground to decline a claim for compassionate appointment and it is not a vested right in the dependent of the ex-employee to seek compassionate appointment. 8. By now it is well-accepted that compassionate appointment is not a mode of appointment. It is not a vested right in a dependent of the deceased employee who can insist that he must be granted appointment on compassionate ground. The only right which a claimant can claim is that his claim for compassionate appointment is decided strictly in terms of the rules framed by the employer for compassionate appointment [refer, " Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India and Others" reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 ]. 9. The learned writ Court has issued the impugned direction only on the ground that the application for compassionate appointment by the elder son of the ex-employee was submitted within time. 10. The writ-petitioner is the younger brother of the first claimant namely, Madan Munda, who died on 07.01.2007 before he was offered compassionate appointment and joined the post. About 18 years after the death of the ex-employee, if a claim which has been raised about 4 years after the death of the first claimant is allowed, the very purpose for offering compassionate appointment is frustrated. In " Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana" reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court emphasizing that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of course has observed, thus; "2. ........The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of 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. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of 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. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned." 11. Records of the case would disclose that there have been inordinate delay on the part of the claimant in agitating his claim for compassionate appointment. Not only 4 years after the death of Madan Munda an application for appointment of the writ-petitioner on compassionate grounds was submitted, undoubtedly at the time of death of his father the writ-petitioner was a minor. 12. Viewed thus and for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 16.12.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6384 of 2014 is set-aside. 13. In the result, L.P.A No. 269 of 2017 is allowed. 14. I.A No. 4032 of 2018 stands disposed of.