Balram Bouri …… v. 1. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Dhanbad. 2. The
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 4593 of 2011 ---------- Balram Bouri ……… Petitioner. Versus 1. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Dhanbad. 2. The Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad. 3. The General Manager, Sijua Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad. 4. The Area Personnel Manager, Sijua Area, Dhanbad. 5. The Project Officer, Tetulmari Colliery, Dhanbad. 6. The Manager, Tetulmari Colliery, Dhanbad ………. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ---------- For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
----------- : Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate ---------- 07/ 23.01.2024 Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondent to provide him employment on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father, who was an employee of respondent-BCCL and died in harness. Further prayer has been made for quashing the letter dated 19/30.03.2010, whereby it was informed to the petitioner that his prayer for compassionate appointment has been turned down. 3. As per the facts of the case, the father of the petitioner was employed as Pump Operator at Tetulmari Colliery of respondent-BCCL. He died in harness on 11.07.1997 and at the relevant time petitioner was minor aged about 10 years. After death of his father, since the petitioner was minor his brother-in-law applied for compassionate appointment giving an undertaking that he will look after the family of deceased employee. However, the prayer of the brother-in-law of the petitioner was rejected since the appointment on compassionate appointment can only be given to 2 the direct dependent of the deceased. Therefore, in the year 2005, on attaining the age of majority, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner thereafter was in regular touch with the respondents but the prayer of petitioner was not considered on one pretext or the other. However, in the year 2009 it was informed by the respondents that the application of petitioner for compassionate appointment has been misplaced and it was asked to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation along with all supporting documents for consideration of his case. Hence, the petitioner again submitted his application on 09.10.2009 with a request to appoint him on compassionate ground. 4. It is the further case of petitioner that instead of giving sympathetic consideration to his request, vide letter dated 19/30.03.2010, respondents informed the petitioner that his prayer for compassionate appointment cannot be considered since he made application beyond the prescribed time limit of 10 months from the date of death of his father. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. 5. Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that action of the respondents in refusing the claim of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. Learned counsel further argues that from the action of the respondents it appears that they have intentionally misplaced the application of the petitioner for the purpose of denying the lawful right of petitioner for getting appointment on compassionate ground as enunciated in the National Coal Wage Agreement (for short ‘NCWA’). Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly argues that a direction be given to the respondents to consider his case sympathetically since after death of his father, the entire family of petitioner is at the verge of starvation and are facing financial crunch. 6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Arpan Mishra and Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, learned appearing for the respondent-BCCL vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that in view of Clause- 9.5.0 (iii), in case of death either in mine 3 accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under Clause- 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned is 15 years and above in age he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. It has been further argued that since petitioner was only 10 years old at the time of death of his father, hence his name could not be kept on live roster and rightly the compassionate appointment was not granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel accordingly submits that for the aforesaid facts and reasons, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is fit to be dismissed outrightly. 7. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. Admittedly, Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is open for the respondents to consider the claim of the dependant of the deceased employee, who died in harness, sympathetically but as per the Scheme. In the instant case, the petitioner was minor of 10 years at the time of death of his father and as per the provisions of Clause-9.5.0 (iii) for keeping the name in live roster, the requirement was that dependant should be 15 years and above in age and hence, rightly the name of petitioner was not kept in live roster for the purpose of compassionate appointment. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments has held that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for under the Rules. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Anju Jain, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 475 has held that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors. [(2008) 15 SCC 560] has held that the compassionate appointment should be given as per policy of the State and the policy should be realistic, reasonable, fair and inconsistence with the constitutional provisions. 4 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Canara Bank & Anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 has held as under: “16. ………………. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee’s family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana, reported in 1994 SCC (4) 138, has held as under:- “6. ……………….. The compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” the sole breadwinner, From the aforesaid judgments, it is crystal clear that objective to give compassionate appointment is to give support to the bereaved family to come over the immediate financial crisis which it faces after the death of the earning member of the family. In the instant case, the petitioner and his family members have survived for more than 14 years, so the family member of the petitioner is not facing financial hardship and as the 5 petitioner is not fulfilling the requisite criteria for appointment on compassionate ground, rightly his case was rejected by the respondent- authorities. 10. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal
Decision
propositions and judicial pronouncements, the writ petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)