Jharkhand High Court
Central Coalfields Limited vs Sudhir Ram @ Sudhir Kumar on 25 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
LPA No. 325 of 2016
Central Coalfields Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies
Act, having its registered Office at Darbhanga House, PO Ranchi University,
PS Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), through its General Manager
(Administration) Sri Gopal Prasad, son of late Basudeo Prasad, resident of
Jawahar Nagar, PO Jawahar Nagar, PS Gonda, District Ranchii, PIN 834 008
(Jharkhand) .... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Sudhir Ram @ Sudhir Kumar, son of late Bindeshwar Mochi, resident of
village Lotowa, PO Khunti, PS Lesliganj District Palamau (Jharkhand)
presently residing at Jharkhand 15 No. Colony, PO Rahawan, PS Mandu
District Ramgarh (Jharkhand) ..... .... Respondent
2. Director Personnel, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, PO
Ranchi University PS Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
3. The General Manager (P & IR), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga
House, PO Ranchi University PS Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
4. The General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Hazaribagh Area, AT &
PO Charhi PS Sadar District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)
5. Project Officer, Jharkhand Open Cast Project Central Coalfields Limited,
PO & PS Mandu District Ramgarh(Jharkhand)
6. The Personnel Manager, Jharkhand Open Cast Project, Central Coalfields
Limited, PO & PS Mandu, District Ramgarh (Jharkhand)
7. The Welfare Officer, Jharkhand Open Cast Project, Central Coalfields
Limited, PO & PS Mandu District Jharkhand. ... Proforma Respondents.
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate;
Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate
------
ORDER
th
25 August 2022
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.
The Central Coalfields Limited (in short, 'CCL') is in appeal
against the order dated 20th May 2016 passed in WP(S) No.4485 of 2014.
2. The CCL has taken exception to the aforesaid order on the
ground that a direction to reconsider the claim for compassionate
appointment could not have been passed by the writ Court, twenty-two years
after the death of father of the writ petitioner.
2 LPA 325 of 2016
3. The writ Court has held as under:
"I find no force in the said arguments. The petitioner being
a minor on the date of death of his father could not have applied
seeking compassionate appointment. He, at best, could have
requested the authorities of the Central Coalfields Ltd. to keep him
in the live roster. Though, application to that effect was filed by the
mother of the petitioner, but existence of the same is being disputed
by the Central Coalfields Ltd.. Even if the said document is
disputed, the application dated 16.02.1997 is not disputed by the
Central Coalfields Ltd. This application dated 16.02.1997 was also
filed when this petitioner was a minor.. There is no limitation to
intimate to the management by a minor to keep him in live roster.
This information can be given at any point of time even a day
before the claimant attains majority. In the facts of the case , I find
that the application was filed before attaining majority. Since on
the date of application the petitioner did not attain majority, the
Central Coalfields Ltd. should have kept him in the live roster and
offered him appointment after he attained majority. This being not
done by the Central Coalfields Ltd., they have committed a gross
illegality. The Central Coalfields Ltd. on 23.02.2013 dismissed the
claim of the petitioner on the ground 'it is time barred'. The reasons
arrived at by the Central Coalfields Ltd. is also bad for the simple
reason that even if the petitioner could have applied within 1½
years from the date of death of his father, the Central Coalfields
Ltd. could not have appointed him, since on that date also, he was
a minor. It is only after 10.04.1997 (the date when the petitioner
attained majority), the Central Coalfields Ltd. could have offered a
letter of appointment to him. Since admittedly the application of the
petitioner is dated 16.02.1997 i.e. before the date he attained
majority, his application could not have been thrown out on the
ground that this is a belated one. Thus, the impugned order is
absolutely bad and is liable to be set aside.
On the aforementioned facts of the case and observation
made above, the order dated 23.02.2013 contained in Annexure-8
to the writ application, whereby the application of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment has been rejected is set aside. The
matter is remanded back to the respondent no.5, the Project Officer,
Jharkhand Open Cast Project, Central Coal Fields Ltd. to consider
the case of the petitioner on merits within a period of three months
from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If the
authority finds on merit that the petitioner is entitled to get
compassionate appointment, necessary appointment letter should
be issued within one month thereafter.
Before parting with this, it is necessary to highlight the fact
that as per Central Coal Fields Ltd., the application for
compassionate appointment was filed on 16.02.1997. The Central
Coal Fields Ltd. sat over the matter and ultimately rejected the
claim of the petitioner on 23.02.2013 i.e. after more than 16 years.
This shows gross negligence on the part of the Central Coal Fields
Ltd. The authorities of the Central Coal Fields Ltd. should take
proper care so that application for compassionate appointment is
disposed of within a period of six months and not more than that. In
view of this gross negligence on the part of the Central Coal Fields
Ltd. authorities, a cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) is
imposed upon the Central Coal Fields Ltd. to be paid to the
petitioner within a month.
This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid
observations and directions."
3 LPA 325 of 2016
4. The father of the respondent No.1 who was posted at Jharkhand
Open Cast Project, Hazaribagh of CCL as Pump Khalasi died on 18 th January
1995. At that time the respondent No.1 was aged about 15 years. According
to him, his mother submitted a representation with CCL for putting his name
on live roster. This stand of the respondent No.1 has been denied by CCL in
the counter affidavit filed in the writ proceeding. On 16 th February 1997, an
application seeking compassionate appointment for the respondent No.1 was
submitted which was returned by CCL on the ground that the application was
filed two years and one month after the death of the deceased employee and,
that, the same was not accompanied with birth certificate, death certificate
etc. About one and a half years thereafter a second application for
compassionate appointment was submitted in which name of the respondent
No.1 was found different from what was recorded in the service sheet of his
father and also in the affidavit of his mother. Thereafter an application for
reconsideration of the decision was filed which was rejected on 23 rd
February 2013.
5. It was the order dated 23rd February 2013 which was challenged
by the respondent No.1 in WP(S) No. 4485 of 2014.
6. There is no dispute that the application for compassionate
appointment was filed beyond the period prescribed under the extent
rules/circulars/guidelines of CCL. The writ Court noticed that the application
for compassionate appointment was filed at the time when the respondent
No.1 had not attained the age of majority but took exception to the reason
disclosed in the order dated 23rd February 2013 that; "the application for
compassionate appointment was time barred".
7. A scheme for compassionate appointment is framed by the
employer to extend immediate help to the family in distress. Any scheme for
compassionate appointment is against the mandate under Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India, and for that reason, it has been held that under
the scheme for compassionate appointment a dependent cannot claim any
vested right.
8. But a dependent of the deceased employee shall have a right for
consideration of his case under the scheme framed by the employer.
In"Mohan Mahto v. M/s Central Coalfields Limited and others" (2007) 8
SCC 549 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that consideration for
4 LPA 325 of 2016
compassionate appointment must be made within four corners of the scheme
for compassionate appointment.
9. Keeping the aforesaid parameters in mind, we find that the
respondent No.1 who was a minor at the time of death of his father and for
whose appointment on compassionate ground an application was filed more
than two years after the death of his father cannot claim even a right for
consideration for his compassionate appointment - he was a minor even at
that time.
10. The writ Court overlooked the basic philosophy behind the
scheme for compassionate appointment which has been lucidly explained by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana"
(1994) 4 SCC 138, in the following words:
"2......The whole object of granting compassionate employment is
thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object
is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for
post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an
employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of
livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has
to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased,
and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of
employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job
is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in
Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual
categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate
grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial
destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of
employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the
rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The
favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased
employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought
to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are
expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the
purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against
the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other
families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to
the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in
consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate
expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family
engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly
upturned."
11. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel for the CCL draws our
attention to the judgment in "Central Coalfields Limited v. Parden Oraon"
2021 SCC OnLine SC 299 to fortify the stand of CCL that at this belated
stage no direction for reconsideration of the claim of the respondent No.1
could have been issued by the writ Court - 26 years after the death of the
employee. The writ Court proceeded on a premise as if the appellant has a
5 LPA 325 of 2016
right in law which he can enforce through the processes of the Court.
12. Having found so, we dismiss the writ petition bearing WP(S)
No. 4485 of 2014 and, consequently, LPA No. 325 of 2016 is allowed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 25th August, 2022
SB/Nibha-NAFR
