1. Panpatti Devi, aged about 51 Years, widow of Late Fattu Manjhi; 2. Parwati v. 1. Central Coalfields Limited; a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, a Government of India
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1145 of 2023 1. Panpatti Devi, aged about 51 Years, widow of Late Fattu Manjhi; 2. Parwati Devi, aged about 36 years, wife of Mithlesh Munda and daughter of Late Fattu Manjhi; Both residents of Birsa Nagar, Dundwa Basti, Budh Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Bhurkunda, District-Ramgarh; … … Petitioners Versus 1. Central Coalfields Limited; a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, a Government of India undertaking, having its registered Office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.-Ranchi, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director. 2. Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited; Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.-Ranchi, P.S.-Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 3. General Manager, Barka Sayal Area, Central Coalfields Ltd; Ρ.Ο. & P.S.- Barkakana, District Ranchi; 4. Project Officer, Bhurkunda Project, Central Coalfields Ltd; P.O. & P.S.- Bhurkunda, District Ramgarh; … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Raj Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate --- Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: 08/08.04.2024 “1. That, by means of this writ application, the Petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari of any other appropriate Writ /order for quashing the order dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure -4) passed by respondent No:4 rejecting the claim of the Petitioner No:2 for her appointment against death of her father; AND for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to appoint the Petitioner on compassionate ground against the death of her father and within a specified period; AND/OR for issuance of any such Writ(s)/ Order(s) /Direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while giving the foundational background, has submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is the wife of the ex-employee of the respondents, namely, late Fattu Manjhi, and the petitioner no. 2 is the daughter of late Fattu Manjhi and is wife of Mithlesh Munda. He submits that, though the marriage of respondent no.2 was performed prior to the date of death of Fattu Manjhi, but the petitioner no.2 and her husband were fully dependent on the income of the ex-employee, Fattu Manjhi. The learned counsel submits that initially a writ petition was filed by the petitioner no. 1, being W.P.(S) No. 4598 of 2018, confining her relief with regard to the compassionate appointment of her daughter and not her son-in-law
Decision
and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 13.09.2018 with an observation that the claim of the petitioner's married daughter required consideration by the competent authority/Project Officer Bhurkunda Colliery, and the said writ petition was in turn based on the judgment passed by this Court in LPA No. 196 of 2017, dated 16.08.2018 (Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Hemanti Devi and others) wherein even a married daughter was found eligible for a compassionate appointment under NCWA if she was dependent on the income of the ex-employee. 4. The learned counsel has submitted that the required affidavit was given that the petitioner no. 2 as well as her husband and both of them were totally dependent on the income of the ex-employee, but this aspect of the matter has not been considered and the impugned order has been passed rejecting the claim of compassionate appointment by holding that the petitioner no. 2 was living with her husband after her marriage and was not dependent on the income of ex-employee Fattu Manji. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order is perverse and the same calls for interference. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, has submitted that prior to coming to the conclusion that the married daughter and her husband was not dependent on the ex-employee, a detailed inquiry was conducted and various persons were examined. The learned counsel submits that it has come during inquiry that the petitioner no.2 got married in the year 2002 and was living in her matrimonial house. Though she used to come to see the ex-employee when he was not keeping well and the petitioner no.2 and her husband had got him treated in the hospital. He has also submitted that it has come in the inquiry that ex-employee was not granted any salary on account of ‘no work no pay’ and the record for the year 2015-2016 also indicated that the ex-employee was 2 not being paid any salary for last one year prior to his death. He submitted that so far as the petitioners and the husband of the petitioner no.2 are concerned, they did not produce any oral or documentary evidence to show that they were dependent on the income of the ex-employee. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order is a detailed order after having conducted proper inquiry, and the petitioners are not entitled for any relief under writ jurisdiction. 6. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners in response, has submitted that petitioner no.1 has chosen to live with petitioner no. 2 and her husband, and petitioner no.1 is fully dependent on them. The monetary compensation being paid to petitioner no. 1 is not sufficient to meet her needs. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that, after the death of the ex-employee on 04.03.2016, the petitioner no.1 initially filed an application on 19.01.2017 for grant of compassionate appointment to her daughter, and also filed another application for grant of compassionate appointment to her son-in-law. 8. When compassionate appointment was not granted and the claim of compassionate appointment to the daughter was rejected vide order dated 29.05.2018, the petitioner no.1 filed a writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 4598 of 2018, and confined her relief to pursue her case regarding compassionate appointment of her daughter and not her son- in-law. 9. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 13.09.2018 considering the judgment passed by this Court in LPA No. 196 of 2017 (supra), wherein it has been held that the married daughter cannot be disqualified from getting compassionate appointment if she was dependent on the income of the ex-employee. The writ petition was disposed with a direction to consider the claim of petitioner no. 2. 10. In order to determine as to whether the petitioner no.2 was dependent on the income of the ex-employee, an inquiry was conducted in which various persons were examined including the 3 extended family members of the ex-employee and the neighbourhood and it came to light that the petitioner no.2 got married in the year 2002 and was living in her matrimonial house since her marriage, but at the same time, she used to attend her father who were not keeping well and she and her husband had also taken steps for treatment of ex- employee. It has also come that the ex-employee never included the name of his son-in-law as dependent in the records of the company. It has further come that, so far as ex-employee is concerned, he was refused salary on repeated occasions on the ground of ‘no work, no pay’ and as per the records, the ex-employee was not even getting salary for last one year prior to his death. It has also come on record that so far as petitioners are concerned, they did not lead any evidence, oral or documentary, at the stage of inquiry to substantiate that the petitioner no. 2 and her husband were dependent on the income of the ex-employee. It was ultimately concluded that after marriage the petitioner no. 2 was living with her husband and was not dependent on the ex-employee and was not living with the ex-employee even at the time of his death. 11. This Court is of the considered view that the inquiry which has been conducted pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.4598 of 2018 contains material to show that the petitioner no.2 and her husband were not dependent on the ex-employee and no material was produced by the petitioners during the inquiry to support their claim that the petitioner no. 2 and her husband were dependent on the ex-employee. 12. So far as the claim of the petitioners that after the death of ex- employee, the petitioner no. 1 has been living with the petitioner no. 2 and her husband is concerned, the same has no bearing in the matter. 13. Accordingly, the reasoned order dated 01.07.2022 as contained in Annexure - 4, refusing to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner no.2, does not call for any interference. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4 Saurav