Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1096 (JHR)

Ajay Prabhat Tigga v. Central Coalfields Limited

2020-11-25

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground and also for quashing the letter dated 12.01.2007, 25.11.2006 and 27.09.2013 (Annexure-5, 5/1 and 13). 3. From records it appears that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court, twice, however, could not get any relief. 4. The facts of the case as disclosed in the instant writ application is that the father of the petitioner was employee in the respondent-company who died on 13.08.1996 and thereafter on 28.02.1997, the petitioner filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground. However, his case was rejected vide order dated 24.11.2006 on the ground that amongst others the mother of the applicant is in employment. The said order was challenged by this petitioner in W.P.(S) No.6788 of 2007, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.06.2008 with a liberty to file an application for review /recalling of the impugned order. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for review/reconsideration of his appointment on compassionate ground, which was disposed of by denying the benefit vide order dated 25.11.2008 and the said order was never challenged by the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner again filed a writ application in the year 2009 being W.P.(S) No.5920 of 2009 which was disposed of by directing the General Manager (P&IR), M/s Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi to consider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment and pass an appropriate order. 5. At this stage, it is relevant to mention here that in the subsequent writ application being W.P.(S) No.5920 of 2009, nowhere there is reference of the rejection order dated 25.11.2008, which was passed pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6788 of 2007. Even in the instant case, there is only reference of circular etc. there is no reference of the rejection order dated 25.11.2008 as such, the instant writ application has been filed for same and similar relief. 6. Mr. N. K. P. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a fit case where the respondent should have given appointment to the petitioner, but fairly submits that now he has crossed the age of 35 years. However the mother of the petitioner is definitely entitled for the monetary benefits as per the circular of the respondent-company prevalent at that time. 7. However the mother of the petitioner is definitely entitled for the monetary benefits as per the circular of the respondent-company prevalent at that time. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. A. K. Das, assisted by Ms. Swati Shalini, opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, whatsoever, inasmuch as the deceased employee died in the year 1996 and now after a lapse of 25 years the very purpose of compassionate appointment does not survives. He further submits that while rejecting the claim of the petitioner the respondent authority had passed an order in the year 2006 wherein they have specifically stated that the mother of the applicant was in employment. He further submits that the petitioner had moved before this Court several times and had almost suppressed the order dated 25.11.2008, which was disposed of pursuant to the order dated 27.06.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.6788 of 2007. He further submits that so far as payment of monetary benefits to the wife of deceased employee is concerned, it is a specific stand of the respondent that the petitioner’s mother herself filed an application that she was a government employee. 8. Replying to the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-CCL, Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was a printed form and as a matter of fact the mother of the petitioner was never employed and as such, she is rightly entitled for the monetary claim as per the relevant circular. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that admittedly, the petitioner’s father (deceased employee) died in the year 1996 and the petitioner applied for the job on compassionate ground on 28.02.1997, however, for some reason or the other he could not get the job. It is a settled principle of law that the compassionate appointment is not an alternative mode of recruitment rather it is an exception to the regular mode of appointment. However, a settlement within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding on both the parties and continues to remain in force unless the same is altered, modified or substituted by another settlement. No period of limitation was provided in the settlement. 10. However, a settlement within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding on both the parties and continues to remain in force unless the same is altered, modified or substituted by another settlement. No period of limitation was provided in the settlement. 10. In this view of the matter the petitioner’s claim could have been considered by the respondent authorities but at this stage it is pertinent to mention here that the case of the petitioner was rejected second time vide order dated 25.11.2008, which was passed in compliance to the order dated 27.06.2008 in W.P.(S) No.6788 of 2007, however, the said order was never challenged before this Court. It further appears from the record that now the petitioner is almost 40 years of age; as such, the alternative argument of the petitioner that his mother should be given monetary benefits appears to be impressive. However, from records it appears that there is no alternative prayer made in this writ application; rather during course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner submitted this ground. 11. Having regards the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. However, interest of justice demands that the alternative argument of the petitioner should be considered sympathetically by the respondent authorities. 12. It goes without saying that if any representation is filed before the respondent authorities by the mother of the petitioner, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law, rule, regulation and policy decision of the company and also in the light of relevant NCWA prevalent at the time. 13. With the aforesaid observations the instant writ application stands disposed of.