Jharkhand High Court
Rita Giri vs The Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam ... on 8 August, 2022
1 W.P.(S) No. 1800 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1800 of 2018
Rita Giri ..... ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited through its Chief Managing
Director, Ranchi
2. The Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited, Ranchi.
3. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electric Supply Division,
Dhanbad.
4. Deputy General Manager-cum-Electrical Superintending Engineer,
Electric Supply Division, Dhanbad.
5. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electrical Supply Circle, Dhanbad.
6. Administrative Officer, Electrical Supply Division, Dhanbad.
.... ..... Respondents.
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
-----
9/ 08.08.2022 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondent-JUVNL.
2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 11.7.2017
(Annexure-9), whereby the respondent-JUVNL has rejected the application of
the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground of her being a
married daughter of the deceased employee. Further, prayer has been sought for
a direction upon the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the
petitioner on account of death of her mother, who died in harness on 23.07.2011.
3. As per factual matrix, the mother of the petitioner, namely, Munni
Devi, who was a permanent employee, died on 23.7.2011 while working as Peon
in the office of Electric Supply Division, Dhanbad. Thereafter, the petitioner
being wholly dependent upon her mother, applied for compassionate
appointment on 22.10.2013 in the prescribed form, which was duly received in
the office of the respondents. Upon receipt of such application, the General
Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Dhanbad wrote a letter to the Block Development
Officer, Dhanbad for verification of the family details of the petitioner. The
petitioner sworn an affidavit to the effect that she is unmarried and her two
brothers and one sister have no objection, if compassionate appointment is given
to her. The matter for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was placed
before the Compassionate Appointment Committee after a delay of four years.
However, during this period, the petitioner got married. Finally, the Regional
Compassionate Appointment Committee of respondent JUVNL rejected the
claim of the petitioner on the ground of her being married daughter of the
deceased employee. The rejection order of the Compassionate Appointment
Committee was circulated vide memo no. 2987 dated 19.7.2017. Having no
option left, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of her
grievance.
4. Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the action of the respondent JUVNL in denying the
compassionate appointment to the petitioner, who is the daughter of the deceased
employee is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits
that the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment suffers from gender bias, inasmuch as, if the son of the deceased
employee comes within the zone of consideration for employment on
compassionate ground, there is no reason as to why, the daughter, whether
married or unmarried, should be excluded from the zone, if such daughter is
fully dependent upon the deceased employee. Learned counsel adds that the
claim of the petitioner was rejected after more than four years from the date of
submission of the application by the petitioner that too only on the ground of her
being married daughter. Learned counsel further submits that though the
petitioner is presently married, but at the time of submission of her application
for compassionate appointment, she was unmarried, fully dependent upon the
income of her mother. Learned counsel further submits that it is for the fault of
respondents, the matter was decided after a long delay of more than four years,
and for this act of arbitrariness on the part of the respondents, the petitioner
cannot be victimized. Learned counsel further submits that depriving the
petitioner for providing compassionate appointment is in teeth of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India.
5. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance
upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 196 of 2017
(Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Hemanti Devi & Ors.) wherein, the Central
Coalfields Limited has turned down the case of the applicant only on the ground
that she was married and hence, she was dependent on her husband. The
Division Bench of this Court not only directed the Central Coalfields Limited to
consider the case of the applicant after giving opportunity that she was
dependent on her mother's income at the time of mother's death, but directed to
include the married dependent daughter also in the list of dependent.
Placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in L.P.A. No. 196 of 2017,
learned counsel submits that the impugned order dated 11.7.2017, denying the
appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner, who is daughter of the
deceased employee, is fit to be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of
learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that admittedly, the married
daughter do not come under the definition of dependent of the deceased
employee and hence, no case is made out in favour of the petitioner, who is
married daughter of deceased employee. Learned counsel demonstrates the fact
that own sister of the petitioner has filed an objection on 26.6.2014 before the
respondent authority stating inter alia that the petitioner got married with one
Chandan Sinha and the petitioner by suppressing the real facts, submitted the
application for getting the death-cum-retiral benefits on account of death of their
mother. She has also stated in her objection petition that she has never given
consent for giving the petitioner appointment on compassionate ground. Learned
counsel submits that after considering the objection filed by the sister of the
petitioner, the Regional Compassionate Appointment Committee has rightly
rejected the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment of her
being married daughter of the deceased employee. Learned counsel submits that
in a catena of judgments, law has been well settled that appointments on
compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it must be
provided as per the rules, regulations, and schemes. In the case in hand, since the
Rule do not permit the respondents to offer employment to the petitioner, being
the married daughter of deceased employee, rightly the impugned order has been
passed declining appointment on compassionate ground.
7. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the
parties across the Bar and on perusal of the documents brought on records, this
Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs
consideration. This case is yet another example where the applicant for
compassionate appointment has been discriminated on the ground of gender. The
issue of gender discrimination in compassionate appointment fell for
consideration before this Court and other High Courts, as also before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of Smt. Asha Pandey Vs. Coal India Ltd,
the High Court of Chhattisgarh in W.P.(S) No. 4994 of 2015 vide its order dated
15.3.2016, has been pleased to quash the clause to the extent the same excludes
from the benefits a married daughter. It has been held in said judgment that:-
"(29). As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussion, the writ
petition is allowed and consequently clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-VI, which
has been made applicable to clause 9.4.0(I) of NCWA-IX, regarding
dependent employment only to the married daughter is held to be
violative and discriminatory and the said clause to the extent of
impliedly excluding married daughter from consideration for
dependent employment is hereby declared void and inoperative.
Resultantly, impugned order dated 15.10.2015 Annexure P-1 rejecting
the petitioner's claim for dependent employment on the ground of her
marriage is hereby quashed being unsustainable in law and it is
directed that Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-VI read with clause 9.4.0 of
NCWA-IX be read in the manner to include the married daughter also
as one of the eligible subject to fulfilment of other conditions. As a
consequence, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the
petitioner for dependent employment afresh in accordance with law
keeping in view that her father died way back on 08.02.2014 and her
application for dependent employment was rejected on 15.10.2015,
preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. No order as to costs."
8. In the case of Putul Rabidas Vs. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.,
reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 13128, and also in the case the State of West
Bengal & Ors. Vs. Purnima Das & Ors., reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Cal
13121, the Full Bench of the Culcutta High Court opined that exclusion of a
daughter solely on the basis of her marital status would not be reasonable.
9. In the aforesaid backdrop of the facts and situation, the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited Vs. Hemanti Devi,
decided on 16.8.2018 (2018 SCC OnLine Jhar 918) hold that clause 9.3.3 has
to be construed to include married dependent daughter also. The issue is dealt
with in detailed and it was observed that such discrimination is not based on any
reasonable or rational criteria and it was accordingly, directed that authority
upon giving the writ petitioner an opportunity of hearing, that she was
dependent on her mother's income at the time of her mother's death and at
present does not have sufficient means to run her household irrespective of the
fact as to whether she was married or not.
10. Similar issue yet again fell for consideration before the Division
Bench of this Court, in the case of Madhubala Sinha Vs. M/s Central
Coalfields Ltd & Ors and other analogous cases, in L.P.A. No. 617 of 2017 and
others, decided on 16.9.2019, wherein, the applicant, being the mother of the
deceased employee, gave application for appointment of her unmarried
daughter, on account of death of his son, but she was denied appointment, only
on the ground that the sister is not included in the list of dependents for being
appointed on compassionate ground in Clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA. The Division
Bench after considering every aspects of the matter and after discussing the
various judgments relied upon by the respective parties, as also after quoting
Clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA, held that when the brother of the deceased workman
dying unmarried, if fully dependent upon the deceased employee, is entitled to
be considered for appointment on compassionate ground, there is no reason as to
why sister, whether married or unmarried, should be deprived of such benefits.
If a sister is denied the benefit of compassionate appointment only on the ground
that she is not included under Clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA, this is a clear case of
gender bias and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, also on the
touchstone of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. Relevant
paragraph-27 is quoted herein below:-
"27. For the forgoing reasons, the respondent Central
Coalfields Ltd., is directed not only to consider the claims of
the appellants for being appointed on compassionate
ground in accordance with law, but also to take steps for
inclusion of the parents and sister of the workman dying in
harness, in the definition of dependents under Clause 9.3.3
of the NCWA. We would like to make it clear that
consideration of the appellants for appointment on the
compassionate ground, shall be subject to fulfillment of the
other conditions necessary for such appointment, by the
appellants."
11. At this stage, the submission of learned counsel appearing for the
respondents that married daughter do not come with the definition of dependent
of the deceased employee, is not tenable in view of law laid down by catena of
judicial pronouncements of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
inasmuch as, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madhubala Sinha
and other analogues matters (supra) not only held that sister is entitled to be
appointed on compassionate ground, but also directed the respondents to include
sister within the definition of dependent, which has also been affirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court by rejecting the special leave petition preferred by the
Central Coalfields Ltd & Ors, in Special Leave to Appeal No. 29678 of 2019.
12. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and
legal propositions, I hereby direct the respondent-JUVNL to consider the case of
the petitioner for compassionate appointment in place of her deceased mother
and pass appropriate orders for appointing her on compassionate ground, so that
she could meet the situation of sudden death of sole bread-earner, who had left
the family in penury and without means of livelihood.
13. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks
and if there is no other legal impediments, offer of appointment shall be issued
within a further period of two weeks.
14. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands
allowed.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
R.Kr.
