Saddam Hussain @ Mukhtar Ali vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited
2021 Latest Caselaw 3570 Jhar

                                             1
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             W.P.(S) No. 5469 of 2019
        Saddam Hussain @ Mukhtar Ali              ..... ..... Petitioner
                                    Versus
        1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
            represented through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
            Koyala Bhawan, Dhanbad.
        2. The General Manager (P&IR), BCCL, Dhanbad.
        3. The Area Manager (P), Sijua Area, BCCL, Dhanbad.
        4. Material Manager Regional Store,
           Sijua Area, BCCL, Dhanbad.             .... .... Respondents
                                  ------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK (Through Video Conferencing)

------

For the Petitioner : M/s Sanjay Prasad & Kamdeo Pandey, Advs. For the Respondent-State : Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocate

--------

9 / 23.09.2021 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the reasoned order dated 5.7.2019 (Annexure-9) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground of delay and further to appoint him on compassionate ground.

3. The facts of the case lie in a short compass. Father of the petitioner, namely, Sabdar Ali, who was working and posted as Driver at Regional Store, Loyabad, under the respondent Company, died in harness on 20.4.2012. The petitioner approached the respondent-authorities for compassionate appointment with all relevant documents on 23.6.2012. Since the service excerpts of the deceased employee does not show that Saddam Hussain @ Mukhta Ali (petitioner) is the son of the deceased, the respondent No.2 issued a letter on 24.1.2015 for settlement of employment claims through Lok Adalat as where the name of claimant was not available in service excerpts or in any other official records of ex-employee. After completing the process, the matter of the petitioner was referred to the Lok Adalat, where the case of petitioner has not been considered. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3898 of 2017, which was disposed of directing the respondents to consider it after making proper inquiry. In compliance of the order, the respondents enquired into the matter and passed the reasoned order, whereby, it was found that there was a

serious factual dispute relating to identity and genuineness of the petitioner and the relationship with the deceased employee. One Smt. Rashida Begam also claiming herself to be the 2nd wife of deceased employee Sabdar Ali had submitted an application for employment. Therefore, the respondent authorities directed both of them to come with the declaration from the competent Court of civil jurisdiction declaring their respective identity or relationship with the deceased employee Sabdar Ali. Aggrieved by the said direction of the respondent authority, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court.

4. Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned reasoned order is not tenable in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate ground within due time along with required documents. Learned counsel further submits that the similarly situated person, whose name also does not appear in service excerpts and referred to Lok Adalat, has been considered for employment on compassionate ground, but the case of the petitioner has been discriminated by the respondents. As such, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is fully entitled for compassionate appointment.

5. Mr. Vijya Kant Dubey, learned counsel representing the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the petitioner and argues that no case is made out for interference by this Court, as the respondent authorities in compliance of the direction of this Court conducted an enquiry, wherein, it was found that there is serious dispute regarding identity and genuineness of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner did not submit the required document in respect of relationship with Late Sabdar Ali, the ex-employee, in form of declaratory decree even after long gap of seven years from the death of ex-employee.

6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference. Admittedly, the compassionate employment is provided for immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee died in harness to overcome the loss caused due to untimely death of breadwinner. In plethora of judgments of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been held that compassionate appointment is not a right of an employee. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager, State Bank of India &

Ors. Vs. Anju Jain, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 475 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.

7. 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 sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over."

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in latest judgment delivered in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director & Ors, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299 while referring its earlier decision in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpur (supra) held the same view that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future.

9. In the present case, though the petitioner made the application for compassionate appointment within due time, but his genuineness and identity with the deceased employee is doubted. The petitioner was directed to produce the required document declaring his relationship with the deceased employee, but he failed in doing so and survived for several years i.e more than a decade and at this stage, compassionate appointment cannot be offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crises is over, in view of the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several cases.

10. This writ petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.

(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) R.Kr.