Jharkhand High Court
Akhileshwar Ojha vs Central Coalfields Limited on 15 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 7565 of 2012
--------
Akhileshwar Ojha ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Central Coalfields Limited, through its General Manager (P.
& I.R.), Ranchi, Jharkhand
2. General Manager, N.K. Area, Central Coalfields Limited,
Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. General Manager, Piparwar Area, Central Coalfields Limited,
Chatra, Jharkhand
4. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Piparwar
Area, District Chatra, Jharkhand
..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amitabh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
---------
18/15.07.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through
V.C.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred
by the petitioner for quashing the letter dated 09.10.2012
whereby the application for compassionate appointment to
this petitioner in place of his father has been rejected.
3. At the outset, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned
counsel for the respondents draws attention of this court
towards few documents and submits that after the death
of the deceased employee, who was father of this
petitioner; an offer of appointment was given to the elder
son of the deceased employee, however, unfortunately he
was found unfit for the job and thereafter, the petitioner
applied for compassionate appointment in the year 2011
which was rejected by the respondents and there is no
illegality in the order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly
submits that the petitioner filed a representation before
the competent authority (Annexure 4) and the same has
not been disposed of. He further submits that the stand of
the respondents that there was delay in filing application
for compassionate appointment is not sustainable in the
eye of law, inasmuch as, just after the rejection of his
brother's candidature the petitioner applied, as such it
would be wrong to hold that there is a delay in applying
for compassionate appointment. He lastly submits that
respondents may be directed to dispose of the
representation or a liberty may be given to this petitioner
to approach the project officer to put forth his case.
5. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for
the petitioner, apart from his submissions; referred to a
judgment (Annexure C) and submits that it has been held
by Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 317 of 2016
that the legal obligation of the employer comes to an end
after he gives offer to one of the dependants.
Relevant paragraph of the said judgment,
5(vii)(c) is quoted hereinbelow:
"5(vii)(c) The legal obligation of this appellant comes
to an end, no sooner did, one of the legal heirs of the
deceased employee is offered, either compassionate
appointment or monetary compensation. In the facts of the
present case, monetary compensation was already offered,
to the widow of the deceased employee viz. Kumari Bai on
13th April, 2007. Monetary compensation is always in lieu
of compassionate appointment."
Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, he
contended that the instant writ application deserves to be
dismissed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the documents annexed and the
averments made in the respective affidavits it transpires
that after the death of the deceased employee the
respondent Coal Company has given an offer of
appointment to the eldest son of the deceased employee.
However, he was found unfit and only then this petitioner
applied for compassionate appointment. Thus, the
obligation of the Coal Company comes to an end the
moment compassionate appointment was offered to the
elder brother of the petitioner and giving liberty to this
petitioner will give rise to revival of the dispute which has
already been settled
Even otherwise, recently the Hon'ble Apex
Court in C.C.L. through its Chairman & Managing
Director & Ors. Vs. Parden Oraon reported in 2021
SCC Online SC 299 has held that the object of
compassionate appointment is to provide immediate
succor to the family of the deceased. The applicant is not
entitled to compassionate appointment after a long period
of time since the object of compassionate appointment is
to enable the family to get over the sudden financial crisis
that it faces at the time of death of the sole breadwinner
and as such compassionate appointment cannot be
claimed after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis
is over. It has been held in a catena of judgments that
compassionate appointment cannot be made an
alternative mode of appointment.
7. In view of the aforesaid finding, no relief can be
given to this petitioner and consequently this writ
application is dismissed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
sm/
