Jharkhand High Court
Central Coalfields Limited vs Bharati Devi @ Bharati Roy on 9 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
LPA No. 223 of 2018
-----
1. Central Coalfields Limited, a Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, having its registered Office at Darbhanga House, PO GPO,
PS Kotwali, Distsrict Ranchi (Jharkhand), through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, having Office at Darbhanga House, PO GPO, PS
Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) and also through its Managing
Director (Administration) Sri Bimlendu Kumar, son of Jagdish Pandey,
resident at Flat No.2C, Shanti Apartment, Dangra Toli, Lalpur, PO & PS
Lalpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand);
2. CMD, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, PO GPO, PS
Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand);
3. Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Piparwar Area, PO & PS
Bachara, District Chatra (Jharkhand) ...... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Bharati Devi @ Bharati Roy, widow of late S.K. Roy, resident of Saram, PO
Saram, PS Gomia, District Giridih (Jharkhand)
... Writ Petitioner/Respondent
------ (Through V.C.)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mrs. Uday Choudhary, Advocate
-----
ORDER
th
9 February 2022
By Court:
M/s Central Coalfields Limited (in short, "CCL") has
questioned legality of the order dated 19th January 2018 passed in WP(S)
No. 3143 of 2011 on the ground that a fundamental error was committed by
the learned writ Court in ignoring the object behind compassionate
appointment by issuing a direction to offer compassionate appointment to
the son of the employee who had died more than 15 years ago.
2. In support of the submissions raised on behalf of the appellants,
Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel refers to and relies on a judgment in
"Central Coalfields Limited v. Parden Oraon" 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299.
3. The necessary facts in this case are brief and not in dispute.
4. The writ petitioner's husband was employed as Electrical Fitter
under CCL. He suffered an order of dismissal from service on the ground of
unauthorized absence for 13 days. The order of dismissal dated
24th December 1994 was referred to the Tribunal for adjudicating its
validity. To be precise, the reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal to
adjudicate whether the dismissal of the workman was justified. The
reference was answered in favour of the workman and the Industrial
Tribunal made an award dated 22nd January 2010 holding that dismissal of
the workman was unjustified and therefore he was entitled for 50% back
wages with all consequential benefits. During pendency of the reference
before the Industrial Tribunal the workman had died on 21 st November 2002
but immediately after the award dated 22nd January 2010 was made by the
Industrial Tribunal, wife of the workman submitted a letter dated
22nd December 2010 in the form of an application seeking appointment for
her son under clause 9.3.2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI. It
appears that CCL declined to offer compassionate appointment to son of the
deceased workman on the ground that the award dated 22nd January 2010
does not contain a direction for compassionate appointment to the
dependant of the workman.
5. The learned writ Court took note of the necessary facts in the
case and after hearing the rival contentions held as under:
"(ii).Had the husband of the petitioner been alive after the
dismissal order was declared unjustified, the husband of the
petitioner would have been reinstated in services. Hence, with the
available recourse of compassionate appointment as per Clause
9.3.2 of N.C.W.A, the petitioner immediately after passing of
award applied for compassionate appointment of her son vide
representation dated 22.12.2010, but the same was denied vide
letter dated 22.04.2011 stating therein that since the award does
not speak anything about the compassionate appointment of the
dependent of the workman. It appears that the respondents has
misguided themselves while deciding the application of
compassionate appointment as immediately after quashing of
order of dismissal, the petitioner without lapsing any time 5
approached for compassionate appointment as per Clause 9.3.2 of
N.C.W.A."
6. We are unable to support the aforesaid findings by the learned
writ Court. The finding by the learned writ Court that CCL misguided itself
while deciding the application for compassionate appointment inasmuch as
an application was submitted without lapse of time immediately after
dismissal of the workman and therefore its decision was vitiated in law
cannot be countenanced in law. In the first place, on the date the workman
died he was not in service under CCL and therefore it cannot be said that he
died in harness. Under the award dated 22 th January 2010 the workman
could not have been reinstated in service as by that time he had died and
therefore for all practical purposes even though dismissal of the workman
was held unjustified a presumption cannot be raised that the workman died
in harness. Secondly, in course of hearing the learned counsel for the
appellants informed us that the date of birth of son of the writ petitioner is
10th July 1987. Therefore, son of the writ petitioner was a minor on the date
of death of his father and as such not eligible for employment under CCL.
7. We further find that the learned writ Court was swayed away by
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Mohan Mahto v. M/s Central
Coal Field Ltd. & Ors" (2007) 8 SCC 549 in which a direction for
compassionate appointment was issued 10 years after the death of the
workman. We remind ourselves that a judgment is rendered in the facts of
the case and it carries precedence value only to what has been decided by
the Court. The law on compassionate appointment is well-settled that the
employer frames Schemes/ Rules for compassionate appointment in
recognition of the past services of the employee. A helping hand is extended
to the family in distress to tide over the crisis which ensued on account of
sudden death of the bread earner for the family. It is by now well-settled that
after a long lapse of time if a direction to offer compassionate appointment
is made the very object behind compassionate appointment would be
frustrated.
8. In "Central Coalfields Limited v. Parden Oraon" 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 299 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to
enable the family to tied over the sudden crisis which arises due to
the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee
in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood.
The 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 the job is offered to the eligible member of the
family. It was further asseverated in the said judgment that
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 the future. It
was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is
to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at
the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate
appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse
of time and the crisis is over."
9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find serious error in the
approach of the learned writ Court and therefore the impugned order dated
19th January 2018 passed in WP(S) No. 3143 of 2011 is set-aside.
10. LPA No. 223 of 2018 is allowed, in the aforesaid terms.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated-9th February 2022
Sharda/S.B.-NAFR
