Central Coalfields Ltd. through its Chairman cum Managing Director v. Darbhanga House, Ranchi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S) No. 1636 of 2020 ------ Prakash Mahto …. …. Petitioner(s). 1. Central Coalfields Ltd. through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Versus Darbhanga House, Ranchi 2. CMD Central Coalfields Ltd. Ranchi 3. General Manager, CCI, Kathara Area, Bokaro 4. Assistant Manager (Personnel), swang washery, Bokaro 5. Project Officer, CCL, Swang Washery, Bokaro …. …. Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddhartha Roy, Advocate : Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent ------ 7/23.02.2023 Heard the parties. 2. In this writ application, petitioner has claimed for compassionate appointment. He has prayed to quash the order dated 14.04.2020 bearing Ref. No. SGW/PO/PD/9.3.0/2020/62 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) whereby the respondents have rejected the claim of compassionate appointment of petitioner after holding that there is no clinching evidence available to establish whether Shri Prakash Mahto was almost wholly dependent and residing with the deceased employee. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an Enquiry Report which suggests that petitioner, along with his family members i.e wife and children, were residing with his younger brother, who is the deceased employee. It is his contention that in the said enquiry it came to light that the neighbours had also informed that wife and children of this petitioner were being looked after by the deceased employee. Since no document showing any monetary/pecuniary benefit was produced which would suggests that this petitioner and his family members were being looked after by his younger brother, the claim for the petitioner was rejected by the employer. As per him, the aforesaid rejection is absolutely erroneous and the said fact should not have been taken into consideration while rejecting the claim application. As per the petitioner, according to the scheme of the compassionate appointment, a brother is a dependent and in this case when the brother who happens to be the petitioner, was residing with the employee and was fully dependent upon the deceased, he should have been appointed on compassionate ground. Further he submits that the deceased was employed on compassionate ground itself and at the time of seeking appointment in the year 2016 he had filed an affidavit stating that he would look after his mother and his elder brother. Thus, from the said affidavit which is at Annexure-8 of the writ application, there cannot be any doubt that this petitioner and his family members were dependent on the deceased. -2- 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the CCL submits that this petitioner happens to be the elder brother of the deceased employee. The deceased was admittedly unmarried. When this petitioner was married and having two children, but natural, he was maintaining his own family. On this back ground it cannot be said that the petitioner was dependent on his younger brother i.e the deceased employee. He further submits that though a brother can be a dependent but he has to be fully dependent on the deceased and there has to be sufficient material in support of such claim. In the instant case, there is nothing on record that this petitioner was fully dependent and even the deceased employee has also not accepted the petitioner as a dependent which is apparent from the service book. 5. After going through the record I find that Teklal Mahto was appointed on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father Nemchand Mahto. He was appointed on 2.2.2017. Unfortunately, he died in harness on 15.4.2018. The admitted fact is that this petitioner, who is the elder brother of the deceased, is married and is having two children, whereas deceased was unmarried. 6. The scheme of compassionate appointment is enshrined in the National Coal Wage Agreement at Clause 9.3.0. Clause 9.3.3 further defines and describes the word “dependants”. Wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son are being treated as direct dependent. If no direct dependent is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter in law or son in law are also to be treated as indirect dependent. It is necessary to quote 9.3.3 of NCWA. “9.3.3. The dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally accepted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependant on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependants of the deceased.” 7. From the aforementioned provision the fact which emerges is that indirect dependent must be residing with the deceased and should almost wholly be dependent on the earnings of the deceased to get compassionate appointment. These two conditions must be simultaneously fulfilled by an indirect dependent who is seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Admittedly, this petitioner is an indirect dependent being the elder brother of the deceased. The deceased was unmarried. Now, the question is whether this petitioner was wholly dependent on the earning of the deceased or not, and whether they were residing along with the deceased or not. Whether a person is dependent on an employee or not can be ascertained by the declaration given by the employee himself. This relationship of dependency must be viewed from the point of view of the employee and none other. It is the employee who can certify and acknowledge as to who are his dependants. At the time of entering in service the employee has to fill up several documents and give some declaration. -3- On basis of the said declaration the service book the deceased employee Teklal Mahto was opened. 8. When I go through the copy of the service book which has been brought on record by the respondents, I find that there are column in the service book wherein the employee has to declared his marital status and details of the dependent. Column-15 of the service book suggests that deceased was unmarried. Column- 16 is the details of dependent wherein he has declared his mother to be the dependent. In the said column he has never mentioned the name of this petitioner or any other relations as his dependent. Further in Column 17 the deceased has nominated his mother Lillawati Devi for employment in the event of his premature death. The column-17 is quoted herein below:- 17. Name of the nominee for employment in the event of prematured death…………… ………Smt. Lillawati Devi Mother 100 % …………… This document has been signed by the deceased. Thus from this document which is the declaration of the deceased himself, two aspects are clear:-(i) Deceased had never acknowledged this petitioner to be his dependent (ii) In the event of his premature death, the deceased had nominated Lillawati Devi for employment. Thus it is clear that the deceased has not even nominated his brother for compassionate appointment. This fact clearly suggests that deceased never treated this petitioner to be a dependent nor even nominated him to get appointment, if he dies prematurely. 9. The petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment on the ground of premature death of the employee Teklal Mahto. Telkal Mahto himself has not nominated him on premature death. Further the affidavit which is heavily relied upon by petitioner and the enquiry report has got no relevance, on the ground mentioned above. Thus, I find no merit in this writ application. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. anjali/cp2 (ANANDA SEN , J)