Koel Raha, D/o Late Sapan Kumar Raha, aged about 35 years, resident of Ward v. 1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director, having its registered
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5991 of 2023 Koel Raha, D/o Late Sapan Kumar Raha, aged about 35 years, resident of Ward No.7, P.O., P.S. and District - Dhanbad … … Petitioner Versus 1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director, having its registered office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O and P.S-Koyla Nagar, District-Dhanbad 2. The Chief Manager(P), PB Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O -Putki, P.S-Kenduadih, District-Dhanbad 3. The General Manager PB Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O - Putki, P.S-Kenduadih, District-Dhanbad 4. The Project Officer, PB Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O - Putki, P.S-Kenduadih, District-Dhanbad. … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Kaustav Roy, Advocate : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate --- 04/06.02.2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “a. For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions seeking quashing of the order dated 07.11.2020 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent no.3 whereby and whereunder the claim of the Petitioner seeking compassionate appointment has been rejected on account of the fact that monetary compensation has already been awarded. AND b. Further the Petitioner prays for the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions directing upon the Respondents to consider the claim of the Petitioner seeking compassionate appointment on account of death of her father. And/or For any other appropriate writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper for doing conscionable and complete justice to the petitioner.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner expired on 25.03.2006 and at that point of time, the petitioner was 19 years of age. However, on account of death of his father monetary compensation was paid to his mother said to be in lieu of compassionate appointment and she availed of the same till 11.01.2011, when she expired. 4. The learned counsel submits that in the meantime the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the year 2010 and when the same was not being considered in spite of repeated representations, he 2 filed a writ petition in the year 2020 being W.P.(S) No.228 of 2020 wherein the respondents were directed to consider the pending representation of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order within stipulated time frame. The learned counsel submits that as per the reasoned order, the petitioner has been held to be not entitled for compassionate appointment on the ground that the mother of the petitioner had availed the monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. The learned counsel submits that the claim of compassionate appointment could not have been denied on such a ground. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer has submitted that as per National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), the period prescribed for applying for compassionate appointment is 18 months and admittedly the petitioner did not apply for compassionate appointment within the stipulated time frame although on the date of death the petitioner claims to be 19 years of age. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner did not avail the legal remedies for 10 long years although she claims to have filed the application for compassionate appointment in the year 2010 and the legal remedy was availed only in the year 2020. The learned counsel submits that merely because there was a direction to consider the representation the same cannot wipe out the fact that the petitioner having filed application for compassionate appointment as back as in the year 2010 but did not take any recourse to law. He has also submitted that much time has elapsed and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. He has also submitted that so far as the reason for denial of compassionate appointment as mentioned in the impugned order is concerned, monetary compensation payable in lieu of compassionate appointment was paid to the mother of the petitioner who availed of the same during her life time and after her death the petitioner is not entitled to claim compassionate appointment. It is submitted that monetary compensation is paid in lieu of compassionate appointment and both are not payable. A copy of the circular dated 24.01.2004 of the respondent has been produced which is taken on record. Clause 3 of the said circular provides “No application for dependent 3 employment will be entertained after 18 months from the date of death of disablement.” 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner expired on 25.03.2006 and the mother of the petitioner availed the monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment till her death on 11.01.2011. The petitioner claims to be 19 years of age on the date of death of her father, but he did not apply for compassionate appointment within the stipulated time frame and applied only in the year 2010. The petitioner did not avail any legal remedy till the year 2020 when he filed a writ petition before this court being W.P.(S) No.228 of 2020 and an order for consideration of the representation of the petitioner was passed by this Court on the basis of submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it would be suffice if direction is given to the respondents to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner and pass orders. Thus, while considering W.P.(S) No.228 of 2020, this Court has not adjudicated upon the merit of the case of the petitioner and his entitlement. 7. This Court is of the view that the mother of the petitioner having availed the monetary compensation till her death in lieu of compassionate appointment and further the petitioner did not apply for compassionate appointment within the time frame of 18 months from the date of death of the employee. The fact also remains that much time has elapsed from the date of death of the father of the petitioner which happened way back in the year 2006 and the very purpose of grant of compassionate appointment does not survive any more the impugned order does not call for any interference. 8. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed. Saurav (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)