Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 785 (JHR)

Jai Murti Devi v. Central Coalfields Limited

2020-08-20

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the letter No.1011 dated 25.09.2013, whereby the respondent No.3 communicated the decision of the competent authority, regretting the claim of the petitioner for employment of her son on compassionate ground under the provisions of Para 9.3.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA for short) and further for a direction to provide employment to the son of the petitioner on compassionate ground. 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The husband of the petitioner was appointed on the post of Loader on 19.09.1989 in Hudag Colliery. He filled up his family particulars i.e. Form-PS-3 on 04.07.1998. On 03.01.2003, the husband of the petitioner left the place of work without intimation and even no information was given to the petitioner and finally it was detected that the husband of the petitioner became mentally ill. Thereafter, he was treated in Central Institute of Psychiatric, Ranchi from 18.01.2003 and the Chief Medical Officer, Central Institute of Psychiatric, Ranchi issued a certificate to that effect. However, all of sudden on 11.12.2011, the husband of the petitioner died in harness leaving behind the petitioner as his widow and four children. Thereafter, the petitioner has made an application in prescribed format for employment of one of her sons being dependent of her deceased husband. However, her claim was rejected by the respondent-company by impugned letter. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case wherein several grounds have been taken in support of the impugned letter, however it has been admitted that for unauthorized absence, no disciplinary action could have been proceeded against the deceased employee, but the fact remains that the employee remains out of employment without any wages for a pretty long period of about 9 years till the date of his death. Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit indicates that his name was struck off from the “Manpower Roll” on 15.03.2012 i.e. after the date of application made by the petitioner i.e. dated 09.01.2012. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only to deprive the petitioner from giving compassionate appointment to either of her son, the name of the petitioner has been removed from Manpower Roll. Learned counsel further relied upon the order passed by this Court in the case of CCL Vs. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only to deprive the petitioner from giving compassionate appointment to either of her son, the name of the petitioner has been removed from Manpower Roll. Learned counsel further relied upon the order passed by this Court in the case of CCL Vs. Ajay Ram (L.P.A. No. 337 of 2016), wherein this Court has held in paragraph-5, 6 7 as under:- 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Company has submitted that the impugned Judgment passed by the Writ Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the father of the appellant was absenting from duty since last six years, and the family was surviving without any salary to be paid to the deceased employee. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. B.S. Bhadoriya, (Civil Appeal No. 4588 of 2014 decided on 16.04.2014), wherein in the backdrop of the facts that the application for compassionate appointment was made after two decades and there was no denial to the facts that the employee had absented from duty during the period of two decades, the dependent of the employee was held to be not entitled to any compassionate appointment. 6. The aforesaid decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is not at all applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, in the present case, there is no denial to the fact that the name of the father of the writ petitioner was struck off the rolls of the Company on 26.09.2010, after the deceased employee died on 30.07.2010, while working as Explosive Carrier in the Company, whereas the application was filed for compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner on 17.02.2011, i.e., without any undue delay. There is also no denial to the fact that for the alleged absence from duty for the long six years, he was never subjected to any departmental proceeding or punished therein. In fact, it is the case of the respondent writ petitioner that the deceased employee died in harness on 30.07.2010, while working as Explosive Carrier in the Company. 7. There is also no denial to the fact that for the alleged absence from duty for the long six years, he was never subjected to any departmental proceeding or punished therein. In fact, it is the case of the respondent writ petitioner that the deceased employee died in harness on 30.07.2010, while working as Explosive Carrier in the Company. 7. We are of the considered view that the Hon’ble Single Judge, while adjudicating the writ application filed by the respondent writ petitioner, had rightly decided the issue by observing in the Judgment that undisputedly the father of the writ petitioner was on rolls of the Company till 26.09.2010, i.e., nearly till the date of his death on 30.07.2010, and though it was the claim of the Company that he was absenting from duty since 09.05.2004, but no material was brought on record to show that he was ever subjected to any departmental proceeding or punished for the same. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and contended that the petitioner was absent for more than 8 years and there was no information to that effect that why he was absent. He further submits that the object of compassionate appointment will be frustrated if any appointment is given to the petitioner at this stage. However, he could not dispute the statement made in paragraph 19 of the counter-affidavit, wherein it has been admitted that no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner’s husband for unauthorized leave and the name of petitioner’s husband was deleted from the “Manpower Roll” only on 15.03.2012. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that after the death of the deceased employee, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in favor of one of her son as per Rule 9.3.0 of the N.C.W.A which was received by the respondent-company on 09.01.2012. It also transpires that just after couple of days the name of the deceased employee was deleted from the “Manpower Roll” w.e.f. 15th March, 2012. However, the said letter was signed on 07.01.2013. It also transpires that just after couple of days the name of the deceased employee was deleted from the “Manpower Roll” w.e.f. 15th March, 2012. However, the said letter was signed on 07.01.2013. In my considered opinion, the judgment cited hereinabove is squarely applicable in this case as in the instant case also inasmuch as it is admitted by the respondent company that the husband of the writ petitioner was on rolls of the company till 15.03.2012 (Annexure-A to the Counter Affidavit) when his name was deleted from “Manpower Roll”, though it was the claim of the company that he was absenting from duty since 03.01.2003, but no material was brought on record to show that he was ever subjected to any departmental proceeding or punished for the same, so much so that in para 19 it has been admitted by the respondent-company that no departmental proceeding was ever initiated. Further, the deceased employee was admittedly on the company’s “Manpower Roll” at the time of his death i.e. 11.12.2011. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully agreeing with the findings given in the L.P.A. No. 337 of 2016, I hereby direct the respondent-CCL to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment of any of her sons as per Rule 9.3.0 of NCWA provided the other criteria are fulfilled as per the Company policy and NCWA. 9. Needless to say that this is a beneficial legislation and totally governed by the National Coal Wage Agreement and as such, the general principal of compassionate appointment should not be strictly applicable. 10. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the instant writ application is allowed and disposed of.