The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3773 of 2022 1. Sumitra Devi 2. Hiran Kumari 1. Central Coalfields Limited through Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi Versus ... Petitioners its Chairman-cum-Managing 2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi 3. The General Manager, Charhi Area, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Hazaribag 4. The Staff Officer (Personnel), Charhi Area, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Hazaribag 5. Project Officer, Kedla Washery, Central Coalfields Limited, Kedla, Ramgarh 6. Deputy Manager (P & A), Kedla Washery, Central Coalfields Limited, Kedla, Ramgarh
Legal Reasoning
--- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioners For the CCL --- : Mr. Ashish Kr. Shekhar, Advocate : Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate … Respondents Order No. 04 Dated 29th August, 2023 --- Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the letter dated 26.03.2022 issued by the respondent No. 6, whereby and whereunder, the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner No. 2 has been rejected. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider and provide employment to the petitioner No. 2 under the provision of Para 9.3.0 of NCWA. The husband of the petitioner No. 1 Dineshwar Mahto was employed in Kedla Washery of Central Coalfields Ltd. who died on 02.06.2021 due to COVID-19. After the death of Dineshwar Mahto, the petitioner No. 1 had given an application along with documents with a request to provide compassionate appointment to her younger daughter (petitioner No. 2) in terms of Para 9.3.0 of NCWA. By a letter dated 26.03.2022 issued by the respondent No. 6, the petitioner No. 1 was informed that since there was no provision under Para 9.3.0 of NCWA for granting compassionate 2. appointment to a married daughter, her claim was rejected and she was also advised to apply for monetary compensation. Mr. Ashish Kr. Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though a married daughter does not come within definition of either a dependent or an indirect dependent of a deceased employee as per the provisions of NCWA, but the same has been relaxed in the case of a subsidiary company of Coal India Limited i.e. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., wherein on the basis of an order passed by Chhatisgarh High Court compassionate appointment has been provided to the said petitioner. Learned counsel submits that there cannot be two standards for coal companies, as while one company has adopted a resolution to grant compassionate appointment to a married daughter, but the other companies including Central Coalfields Ltd. are not following the same and refusing to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner No. 2 on frivolous grounds. Learned counsel has also referred to an order passed by this Court in LPA No. 196 of 2017 while claiming that a married daughter who is dependent on the earnings of her deceased father is entitled for the grant of compassionate appointment. Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent CCL has referred to an order passed in LPA No. 161 of 2022 and has further submitted that since NCWA was a result of an agreement between the management and the union, there cannot be any deviation from the policy which has been adopted and which excludes a married daughter as either a direct dependent or an indirect dependent of a deceased employee. The only question for consideration is whether a married daughter is entitled for being granted compassionate appointment on account of death of the employee. In the present case, the petitioner No. 2 is the married daughter of the deceased employee Dineshwar Mahto. It is an admitted fact that the provisions of NCWA does not include a married daughter within the definition of either a direct dependent or an indirect dependent of a deceased employee. Mr. Ashish Kr. Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to project that the policy can be relaxed and there is a dual policy being followed by the coal companies as South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. is following 3. a policy of grant of compassionate appointment to a married daughter by relaxing the criteria of direct dependent/indirect dependent, but the same is not being followed by M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. as would be apparent from the impugned letter dated 26.03.2022. In this context reference may be made to the order passed by this Court in LPA No. 161 of 2022, the relevant of which reads as follows:- “10) Thus, it is clear that compassionate appointment can be made or directed to be made only if it comes within the four corners of the rules or scheme framed thereunder. In this case, there is an agreement between the Management and the Union Representatives in pursuance thereof, the National Coal Wage Agreement has been entered upon and as per the judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd & ors (supra), this agreement is binding on the parties in terms of Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge applying the judgment passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.617 of 2017 is per incuriam. The learned Single Judge has not considered the settled principle of law as enunciated above and in that, we are inclined to allow the appeal and the appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment dated 04.11.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5577 of 2018 is hereby set aside.” Moreover from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it appears that the death-cum-retiral benefits have been granted to the petitioner No. 1 and the said paragraph reads as follows:- “12. That the respondents most humbly state and submit that the object and purpose of compassionate appointment/ monetary compensation in lieu of employment is to enable the deceased employee’s bereaved family to tide over the immediate crisis which may result from sudden death of the bread earner. In the
Decision
instant case, the writ petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs an ex-gratia for Covid death, CMPF amounting to Rs. 4. 42,09,984/-, Gratuity amounting to Rs. 13,16,594/-. Furthermore family pension to the tune of Rs. 11967/- per month has been settled an amount of Rs. 99,938/- has paid as arrears of family pension. It is further stated that payment of Rs. 90,824/- and Life Cover Scheme amounting to Rs. 1,25,000/- is under process.” It therefore appears that that the petitioner No. 2 is precluded from claiming compassionate appointment in view of the absence of a married daughter in the provision of NCWA to be considered for compassionate appointment being a direct dependent/indirect dependent of a deceased employed and the policy which has been framed cannot be relaxed to such an extent so as to include the petitioner No. 2 within the purview of the said policy. In such view of the matter, therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned letter dated 26.03.2022 and consequently this writ application stands disposed of. MK (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J.)