Jharkhand High Court
Writ vs Central Coalfields Limited on 21 January, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 424 of 2023
Prakash Mahto, aged about 34 years, son of Late Nemchand Mahto,
resident of Govindpur, Quarter No. MQ 133, P.O., P.S. & District -
Bokaro.
....... Writ Petitioner / Appellant
Versus
1. Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Darbhanga House, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Kotwali, District
- Ranchi.
2. C.M.D., Central Coalfields Limited, having his Darbhanga House,
P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Kotwali, District - Ranchi.
3. General Manager, CCL, Kathara Area, P.O. - Swang, P.S. -
Gomia, District - Bokaro.
4. Assistant Manager (Personnel), Swang Washery, P.O. - Swang,
P.S. - Gomia, District - Bokaro.
5. Project Officer, CCL, Swang Washery, P.O. - Swang, P.S. -
Gomia, District - Bokaro.
..... Respondents / Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellant: Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Arpita Sinha, Advocate
---------
08/Dated: 21.01.2025
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral)
I.A. No. 2244 of 2024
1) Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondents.
2) This application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 139 days in filing the appeal. It is stated that on account of demise of appellant's father and his brother, there was financial hardship, and that the grandmother of the appellant was also bed-ridden and later, she succumbed to her illness.
-1 of 5-
3) Having regard to the above circumstances, notwithstanding the opposition to the condonation of delay by the respondents, this application is allowed, since we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the said period of delay and also because the delay is not substantial.
L.P.A. No. 424 of 2023
4) This appeal is preferred against the judgment 23.02.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1636 of 2020.
5) The appellant had filed the said writ petition seeking compassionate appointment in the 1st Respondent-Organisation by challenging an order dt. 14th April 2020 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition), whereby the respondents had rejected his claim for compassionate appointment.
Order dt. 14.04.2020
6) In the order of 14th April 2020, it is mentioned that the Ex- employee of respondents, by name, Teklal Mahto, died on 15.04.2018 and the mother of the deceased-employee Smt. Lilawati Devi submitted an application on 16.06.2018 for providing employment to her elder son, i.e., appellant, in place of her deceased son invoking Para 9.3.0 of the N.C.W.A.
7) It is further stated in the impugned order dt. 14.04.2020 that a "brother" would come under the category of an "indirect dependent"
and that the essential factor/ingredient to consider in such a case was that the indirect dependent must be "residing" with the Ex-employee and must be almost "wholly dependent" upon the earning of the Ex- employee.
-2 of 5-
8) It is further stated that since the appellant's name did not appear in any service-linked records of the deceased-employee, the case was referred to a Dispute Resolution Committee and the members of the said Committee recommended (in Annexure-II/C) that the appellant is elder brother of the deceased-employee, but that there was no clinching evidence available to establish whether he was almost wholly dependent and residing with the deceased-employee and that was why, the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment was being rejected.
Consideration by the Court
9) A reading of Annexure-II/C, which is the report of the Dispute Resolution Committee, shows that Nemchand Mahto was previously employed with the respondents and on his death, late Teklal Mahto had been appointed on compassionate grounds and the appellant was mentioned in the family details of his late father Nemchand Mahto as a son. Therefore, there is no dispute that the appellant was the elder brother of the deceased-employee.
10) The report of the Committee also shows that the name of the appellant was mentioned in the Photo Medical Card issued by the Sr. Personnel Officer of Govindpur Project. His name also appeared in the Ration Card dt. 14.04.2006 issued by the competent authority along with the deceased. The mother of the deceased had given an affidavit that the appellant is her elder son and sought employment for him in the place of the deceased-employee.
11) The Committee also mentions about examining three neighbours of the appellant and concludes that the appellant was the elder brother of the deceased-employee of the respondent; he was
-3 of 5- normally resident with the deceased at Qtrs. No.MQ/133 Miners Quarters, Govindpur; and his wife and two children were also residing in the same quarters along with the mother of the deceased.
12) It is also mentioned in the Committee's report that an affidavit was sworn by the deceased-employee on 09.03.2016 that he would take care of his elder brother, i.e., the appellant, and also his mother.
13) However, a perverse finding is recorded by the Committee that there is no document to show any monetary/pecuniary benefits being received by the appellant from his deceased brother.
14) We are shocked that such a conclusion was drawn by the Committee overlooking the fact that the appellant was residing with the deceased-employee and the deceased-employee himself filed an affidavit on 09.03.2016 stating that he would look after the appellant and also his mother.
15) Compassionate appointment is in the nature of a welfare measure introduced by the State to alleviate the suffering of a family whose breadwinner has died suddenly.
16) Instead of showing empathy to the deceased's family and sympathetically considering the appellant's case for compassionate appointment, a totally perverse view has been taken in the impugned order which is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable that there was no clinching evidence available to establish that the appellant was almost wholly dependent and residing with the deceased-employee.
17) Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has supported the action taken by the respondents by taking a view that in the service book of the deceased-employee it was merely mentioned that the deceased-employee was "unmarried" and that he
-4 of 5- had only declared his mother as a dependent and that he had not mentioned the name of the appellant. The learned Single Judge has ignored inexplicably the material evidence, i.e., that the deceased- employee himself gave an affidavit on 09.03.2016 that he would look after the appellant and also his mother.
18) For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the Single Judge cannot be sustained.
19) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dt. 23.02.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.1636 of 2020 is set aside; and the said writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to provide compassionate appointment to the appellant within four weeks. The respondents shall pay cost of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Manoj/ Pramanik/Cp.2
-5 of 5-