Arbind Kumar Son Of Late Prahlad ... vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4920 Jhar

                                             1




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                W.P.(S) No. 6092 of 2016
                                            ----
               Arbind Kumar son of late Prahlad Beldar, resident of Bhuli B.L.
               Colony, PO PS Bhuli, District Dhanbad.
                                                        ...     Petitioner
                                         -versus-
               1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through C.M.D., Koyla Bhawan, Koyla
               Nagar, PO Koyla Nagar, PS Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.
               2. The General Manager, Kusunda Area, M/s B.C.C.L., PO Kusunda,
               PS Kenduadih, District Dhanbad.
               3. The Chief Manager (Personnel), Kusunda Area, M/s B.C.C.L., PO
               Kusunda, PS Kenduadih, District Dhanbad.
               4. The Project Officer, Gondadih Colliery, M/s B.C.C.L., PO Kusunda,
               PS Kenduadih, District Dhanbad.
                                                        ...     Respondents
               CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
                                       ----
           For the Petitioner :  Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
           For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
                                 Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate
                                       ----
                                   ORDER

     RESERVED ON 03.11.2022                        PRONOUNCED ON 6.12.2022

9/ 6.12.2022      Petitioner, in this writ petition, prays for grant of compassionate

appointment, as the father of this petitioner, namely, Prahlad Beldar became traceless during his service period and was declared dead by the competent Court of law.

2. Father of the petitioner, namely, Prahlad Beldar went missing on 08.08.1998 as he did not return from his duty. Information was given to the police and the employer. As the whereabouts of father of this petitioner could not be traced, a suit was filed by the wife, praying therein for a declaration that Prahlad Beldar is deemed to be dead. Title suit was numbered as Title Suit No.98 of 2008. The suit was decreed vide judgment dated 04.10.2012. Accordingly, on 16.04.2013, death certificate of Prahlad Beldar was issued, mentioning his date of death as 04.10.2012 in terms of the decree. On 16.08.2013, an application for compassionate appointment was filed. The revenue authorities of the district of Dhanbad verified the factum of death. Inspite of medical examination and other paraphernalia, the appointment was not granted, which led in filing of this writ petition, seeking compassionate appointment.

3. It is the case of the respondents that as the father of the petitioner was absconding from duties without any reasons since 1998, he was dismissed from employment with effect from 08.01.2002 and his name was

struck off from the rolls / manpower register maintained by the Company, way back in the year 2002. Further, they have taken a plea that a decision has been taken in the 101st Director(P)'s meet held on 9th June, 2013 at Hyderabad that in case of employment to dependent of missing employees (Deemed death), employment to the dependent is not to be considered.

4. Considering the submissions of the parties, based on the aforesaid record, I find that it is admitted that father of the petitioner went missing in the year 1998 and after filing of the suit, he was declared dead on 04.10.2012 for which a death certificate was issued. An application for compassionate appointment was filed, but till date no action has been taken.

5. Compassionate appointment is granted to the family of a deceased to overcome the sudden crises, which the family faces on the sudden death of the employee, who dies in harness. Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to a source of livelihood. Further, a compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period, as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right, which can be exercised at any time in future. Due to subsequent gradual passage of time the need for compassionate appointment diminishes as the family slowly and gradually tides over the financial crises. In the instant case, the employee went missing in 1998 and today we are at fag end of 2022. Almost 24 years have already passed and the family has survived for these 24 years. Further, the application was filed in 2013, which is more than 15 years after the father of this petitioner went missing. In similar circumstances and more or less on the same facts, in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Others versus Parden Oraon reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 299 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a view that son of the missing employee is not entitled to compassionate appointment after passage of long period of time, since his father had gone missing.

6. Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I find no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02