Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1098 (JHR)

Manti Sinha v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.

2020-11-25

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the name of petitioner no.2 should be read as “Pankaj Kumar” instead of ‘Pawan Kumar’ which has been wrongly typed in the cause title of the writ application as “Pawan Kumar” and prays for modification of the same. 3. Prayer is allowed to the extent that ‘Pawan Kumar’ (petitioner no.2) be read as “Pankaj Kumar”. The Registry is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the writ application. 4. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioners for a direction upon the respondent authorities to give compassionate appointment to the son of the petitioner no.1 i.e. Pankaj Kumar (petitioner no.2) as the husband of the petitioner no.1 died in harness due to cancer on 12.07.2009. 5. The facts as disclosed in the instant writ application is that the husband of the petitioner no.1, namely, Nawal Kishore Singh was an employee of respondent-company who was suffering from liver cancer and was admitted in Bokaro General Hospital (owned and managed by respondents-company). Unfortunately, on 05.07.2009, his condition deteriorated and he was admitted in Bokaro General Hospital. On 08.07.2009 he tenders his resignation with a request to appoint his son on compassionate ground as per policy of the company. On 12.07.2009, the husband of the petitioner no.1 died in the hospital of the Respondent and in the Postmortem Report, the doctor opined that the cause of death was liver cancer. On 27.07.2009, the petitioner no.1 was asked to appear before the Cancer Disease Board on 06.08.2009 and on that date she along with her son appeared before the Board but in spite of all these so called formalities, no appointment was given to the petitioner no.2 and since July, 2009 the petitioner no.1 is running from pillar to post for compassionate appointment for his son and finally they were forced to knock the door of this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the issue involved in this case is no more res-integra that compassionate appointment has to be given as per the agreement and policy decision of the company and no Medical Board Report is required. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the issue involved in this case is no more res-integra that compassionate appointment has to be given as per the agreement and policy decision of the company and no Medical Board Report is required. He further referred to several judgments of this Court and submits that scheme for compassionate appointment is in the nature of social welfare measure and if a broader interpretation of such scheme/legislation advances the course of justice, then same has to be followed. He further submits that concept of compassionate appointment is in the nature of exception to the mode of regular appointment. The purpose behind the scheme is to give succor and means of sustenance to the dependant of the employee who died in harness on the ground of medical invalidation. 7. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel for the respondent-company reiterated its stands made in the counter affidavit especially at paragraph nos. 8 to 11, which are reproduced herein below:- “8. That it is stated and submitted that in the present writ application the petitioners have inter alia prayed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus or in the nature thereof commanding/direction upon the respondents to immediately give compassionate appointment to the son of the petitioner no.1 as the husband of the petitioner no.1 died due to cancer on 12.07.2009. 9. That it is stated and submitted that before giving parawise reply to the writ application some short facts of the case are being given below for better appreciation of the points involved in the present case. 10. That it is stated and submitted that late N.K. Singh, staff no.316118, Ex. Operative of Blast Furnace Department, applied for employment of his son-Sri Pankaj Kumar on substitution basis on account of his suffering from cancer disease, through his application dated 08.07.2009 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application which was received in the Personnel / Recruitment Department on 14.09.2009 and on the same day the said application was forwarded to the Medical Department to get it examined by the Cancer Disease Board and subsequently the petitioner no.1 was called by the Cancer Disease Board held on 06.08.2009 and 03.10.2009. 11. That it is stated and submitted that the Cancer Disease Board on 06.08.2009 requested for histo-pathological evidence (obtained after autopsy) and liver specimen to be produced in the next Cancer Disease Board.” 8. 11. That it is stated and submitted that the Cancer Disease Board on 06.08.2009 requested for histo-pathological evidence (obtained after autopsy) and liver specimen to be produced in the next Cancer Disease Board.” 8. Replying to the aforesaid stand of the Respondent-Company, the petitioner contended by referring to paragraph nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the rejoinder dated 22.08.2012 filed by him to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the petitioner was asked to produce histo-pathological evidence (obtained after autopsy) and liver specimen which was totally illogical and mischievous. He further contended that the deceased employee was admitted in the hospital; fully owned and managed by the Respondent-Company. Hence, the stand of the respondents to produce the histo-pathological evidence and liver specimen is totally mala-fide and unsustainable. 9. Vide order dated 06.10.2020, learned counsel for the respondents was directed to seek instruction on the specific averments made in paragraph nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the rejoinder to the counter affidavit; however, the same has not been filed till date nor the statement has been rebutted in course of argument. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that the deceased employee made resignation on 08.07.2009 with a request to give appointment to his son on compassionate ground as per policy and agreement of the company. The only case of the respondents is that due to absence of histo-pathological evidence, the case was declared not suitable for consideration of job in the Medical Board held on 03.10.2009. In this regard it is pertinent to mention here that this stand of the respondent does not have any legs to stand in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the deceased employee who was husband of petitioner no.1, was admitted in the hospital of respondents which was fully owned and managed by the Respondent-Company and thereafter, he was sent for autopsy. So asking these reports from the petitioners is totally unjustified and without any basis. Further in the case of Sangita Gupta Vs. Steeld Authority of India reported in 2015 (2) JLJR 626 the Hon’ble Court has held at Para-7 as under: “ …………….” In yet another judgment passed in the case of Ankit Tiwari Vs. So asking these reports from the petitioners is totally unjustified and without any basis. Further in the case of Sangita Gupta Vs. Steeld Authority of India reported in 2015 (2) JLJR 626 the Hon’ble Court has held at Para-7 as under: “ …………….” In yet another judgment passed in the case of Ankit Tiwari Vs. The Steel Authority of India in W.P.(S) No.1665 of 2017, the Division Bench of this Court after referring to the case of Sangita Gupta (supra) has held in paragraph-7 as under: “7. …………… if a broader interpretation of such a scheme / legislation advances the course of justice, then the same has to be followed. If a narrower interpretation tends to defeat the object and purpose of socio economic welfare measure, it is to be avoided.” 11. In view of the aforesaid judgments and the facts of the case it is clear that the stand taken by the Respondents-Company is non-est in the eyes of law and the case for compassionate appointment should not be refused only on the ground of absence of histo-pathological evidence, inasmuch as, the deceased employee who was husband of petitioner no.1, was admitted in the hospital of respondents which was fully owned and managed by the Respondent-Company. 12. Consequently, the instant writ application is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the respondents with a direction to examine the case in the light of aforesaid discussion/finding and on the basis of the relevant records relating to medical treatment. If his case comes within the purview of the applicable Circular/Scheme, the case for compassionate appointment should not be refused on technical grounds. It is made clear that the Respondents should conclude this exercise within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioners shall also be at liberty to supply all the relevant documents along with his detailed representation together with copy of this order before the respondent authorities for consideration of the case of compassionate appointment of Petitioner No.2. 13. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ application stands allowed and disposed of.