The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No. 4385 of 2008 ---- Ravi Kumar Patnayak The State of Jharkhand and ors. ---- -Versus- ... ... … Petitioner ... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner For the Respondents :Mr. M. Tiwari :Mr. Ananda Sen ---- ---- 6- 15.5.2013 Heard counsel for the parties. The claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been refused by the impugned order dated 28.1.2007, Annexure-10, passed by the respondent no.4, Project Officer, B.C.C.L. Patherdih Coal Washery, Dhanbad. The petitioner in the alternative has made a prayer for grant of subsistence allowance to the mother of the petitioner till she attains the age of 60 years. The short facts of the instant case required for deciding the controversy are as follows: The father of the petitioner, i.e. Prakash Kumar, a permanent employee of B.C.C.L. Patherdih Coal Washery, Dhanbad died on 24.10.1992 leaving behind his widow and six minor children including the petitioner. In terms of an agreement dated 14.12.1993, the petitioner's mother was asked to give option whether she is inclined to accept subsistence allowance of Rs. 1500/- per month till her son attains the age of 18 years or till she reaches the age of 60 years. The petitioner admittedly was minor below 5 years of age at the relevant point of time. The petitioner's mother opted for subsistence allowance till the petitioner i.e. her son attained the age of 18 years, as per Annexure-3, dated 29.11.1994. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the minutes of the agreement dated 14.12.1993, extract of which has been referred in Annexure-2, issued by the Personal Manager on 13.9.1994. Counsel for the petitioner has also produced a zerox copy of the minutes of the said discussion between the representatives of the Coal Washery Workers' Union and the 2. management of B.C.C.L. and C.I.L. The first item i.e. employment to the dependents of the deceased workman, covered under SAIL terms and conditions, are relevant for the purpose of appreciating the rival stand of the parties. The same is being quoted herein- below, a copy of the said minute is kept on record: “(1) Employment to the dependents of deceased workmen covered under SAIL Terms and Conditions-: The matter was discussed and it was agreed that the employment of the dependent workmen dying in harness will be considered sympathetically and their dependent appointees will be given posting in other near-by subsidiary company. In case the dependent of deceased employee is female monthly subsistence allowance @ 1500/- per month will be paid till such time the minor male dependent attains the age of 18 years(or) till herself reaches the age of 60 years depending upon the consent of such female dependent. It was also agreed that the claim for employment of the dependents of permanent disabled will be examined by the CMD, BCCL.” The petitioner has interpreted the minutes arrived at in the discussion of the meeting held on 14.12.21993, as reflected in Annexure-2, to submit that the male dependent of the deceased employee after attaining the age of 18 years is entitled to compassionate appointment. Perusal of minutes, however, shows that an option was given to the widow of the deceased to claim subsistence allowance till the minor male dependent attains the age of 18 years or till widow herself reaches the age of 60 years. The language used in Annexure-2 is also quite explicit as it says that the subsistence allowance will be paid till such time as aforesaid instead of providing compassionate appointment to the dependent. The petitioner has interpreted the aforesaid to mean that after attaining 18 years of age he should have been given compassionate appointment. The petitioner accordingly, made an application, vide Annexure-5, on 26.9.2005 for grant of compassionate appointment upon attaining 18 years of age enclosing the necessary documents and certificate also, which has, 3. however, been refused by Annexure-10 dated 28.1.2007 issued by the respondent no.4, Project Officer, B.C.C.L. Patherdih Coal Washery, Dhanbad. Simultaneously the subsistence allowance granted to the petitioner's mother has also been stopped upon attaining the age of 18 years of the petitioner, vide Annexure-9. The respondents have taken a stand that the agreement relied upon by the petitioner of 14.12.1993 has not stipulated grant of compassionate appointment after attaining the age of majority by a male dependent of the deceased employee. It only provides for grant of subsistence allowance at the option of the widow lady till the age of majority of the minor male dependent or the widow reaching the age of 60 years on her consent. I have heard counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant materials on record and the terms of the minutes of discussion held on 14.12.1993, which have been quoted hereinabove. The construction of the aforesaid minutes do not indicate that it provides for grant of compassionate appointment after attaining the age of majority of a minor male dependent of the deceased- employee. It rather provides for grant of subsistence allowance @ 1500/- per month till minor male dependent attains the age of 18 years or the widow of the deceased employee reaches the age of 60 years, as per her option exercised. Upon the application of the petitioner, on reaching the age of 18 years, the respondents have taken the same view and refused to give compassionate appointment. On that ground, the impugned order, therefore, does not appear to be contrary to what has been decided in the meeting held on 14.12.1993. The compassionate appointment is available to the dependent of a deceased employee as per the terms and conditions prescribed in a circular or scheme framed by the organization where such employee has been working and has died in harness. No departure from the terms and conditions 4. of the scheme by any court of law including writ court, while considering the question of compassionate appointment, can be made as also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including that of Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Lucknow & ors. Vs. Prabhat Singh, reported in JT 2013 (1) SC 350. In these circumstances, therefore, the stand of the respondents cannot be found fault with. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pandey (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. )