Central Coalfield Limited Managing Director, Ranchi v. through its Chairman
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1641 of 2022 ------- Raju Kumar … Petitioner 1. Central Coalfield Limited Managing Director, Ranchi. Versus through its Chairman-cum- 2. The Director Personnel, Central Coalfield Limited, Ranchi. 3. The General Manager (P & IR), Central Coalfield Limited, Ranchi. 4. The Chief Manager (Labour and Recruitment), Central Coalfield Limited, Ranchi. 5. General Mana ger, Central Coalfield Limited, Kathara Area, Bokaro. 6. The Project Officer, Jarangdih Colliery, Central Coalfield Limited, Jarangdih, Bokaro. … … Respondents -------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Chandra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Pawan, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, Adv. ------- ------ 04/28.08.2023 Heard Mr. Harsh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider his application for grant of compassionate appointment. The mother of the petitioner Munia Devi was an employee in Central Coalfields Limited who died in harness on 29.01.2011. An information to that respect was given to the respondent authorities. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of such information and since the petitioner was more than 12 years of age, his name was not kept in a live roster in terms of para-9.5.0 of NCWA-VIII. After attaining majority, the petitioner has approached the respondent authorities for grant of compassionate appointment to him, but the same has not been acted upon by the said authorities. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the information was submitted to the -2- authorities regarding the death of the mother of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the authorities to keep the name of the petitioner in a live roster in terms of para-9.5.0 of NCWA. Learned counsel submits that since the respondents had not kept the name of the petitioner in live roster, even after attaining majority the compassionate appointment has not been provided to the petitioner. He has relied upon an order of this Court passed in the case of Mohan Mahto Vrs. M/s. Central Coalfields Limited & Ors. reported in 2007(6) Supreme 525. Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents submits that it was the duty of the petitioner to have made an application in proper format for his name to be kept in a live roster. He submits that the petitioner had merely forwarded an application intimating the authorities regarding the death of his mother and the same would not suffice in keeping his name in live roster. As per the service excerpts, on 3.2.2004 the age of the petitioner was 5 years. The death of his mother occurred on 29.1.2011 and therefore based on the age in the service excerpts it can be presumed that the petitioner was on the verge of attaining 12 years of age. The application submitted by the petitioner has been brought on record from which it appears that intimation was given to the respondents regarding the death of his mother and to act upon para-9.3.0 of NCWA. In fact, the relevant provisions of N.C.W.A. reveal that in case of medical unfitness or death of an employee, one employment is offered and when the main dependent is about 12 years of age, he should be kept in live roster and would be provided with employment commensurate with the decision of one employment once he attains the age of 18 years. It was therefore incumbent upon the respondents that once an intimation has been received by the company about the death of the mother of the petitioner who was an employee in the respondent company to have kept the name of petitioner in live roster and it cannot be said that merely because the petitioner has not made an application in proper -3- format, therefore the petitioner cannot be provided with such benefit. In the case of Mohan Mahto (Supra) it was held as follows :- “16. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the case for grant of compassionate appointment of a minor was required to be considered in terms of Sub-clause (iii) of Clause 9.5.0 of the N.C.W.A.V. In terms of the said provision, the name of the appellant was to be kept on a live roster. He was to remain on the live roster till he attained the age of 18 years. Respondents did not perform their duties cast on them thereunder. It took an unilateral stand that an application has been filed in the year 1999 in the prescribed form. For complying with the provisions of a settlement which is binding on the parties, bona fide or otherwise of the respondent must be judged from the fact as to whether it had discharged his duties thereunder or not. In this case, not only it failed and / or neglected to do so, but as indicated hereinbefore it took an unholy stand that the elder brother of the appellant being employed, he was not entitled to appointment on the compassionate ground. Thus, what really impelled the respondent in denying the benefit of compassionate appointment to the appellant is, therefore, open to guess. We expect a public sector undertaking which is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India not only to act fairly but also reasonably and bona fide. In this case, we are satisfied that the action of the respondent is neither fair nor reasonable nor bona fide.” It would therefore appear that the respondents have not performed their duties in terms of para-9.5.0 of NCWA. The petitioner on attaining the age of majority had submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 8.6.2020 which has not yet been considered. If the respondents had performed their part of duty, the name of the petitioner would have figured in the live roster and consequently upon attaining the age of majority he would have been provided compassionate appointment in terms of para-9.5.0 of NCWA-VIII. Though learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the application for compassionate appointment was made after 9 years of the death of the mother of the petitioner, but the fact that the application for keeping him in live roster was made within time -4- which was not acted upon by the respondent company and the application preferred for compassionate appointment was after the petitioner had attained majority, the delay in submitting such application cannot be attributed to the petitioner. In view of the above therefore, this writ application stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.6 to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and pass a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Shamim/- (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)