Jharkhand High Court
Raj Kumar vs M/S Central Coalfields Limited on 6 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P(S) No. 1904 of 2017
Raj Kumar, son of late Raj Kumar, resident of village Chikor, PO & PS
Bhadani Nagar, District Ramgarh ...... Petitioner
Versus
1.M/s Central Coalfields Limited, a Government of India Undertaking
having its registered office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, PO Ranchi, PS
Kotwali, District Ranchi through its Chairman cum Managing Director
2.Chairman cum Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga
House, Ranchi, PO Ranchi, PS Kotwali, District Ranchi through its
Chairman cum Managing Director
3.Director (Personnel) P &IR, M/s Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga
House, Ranchi, PO Ranchi, PS Kotwali, District Ranchi
4.Project Officer, Bhurkunda Colliery, PO Bhurkunda, PS Bhurkunda,
District Ramgarh .... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
For the CCL : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
---------
Order No. 07 /Dated: 06th April 2023
The petitioner who is the son of late Raj Kumar is seeking a
direction upon the Central Coalfields Limited (in short, CCL) to consider
him for compassionate appointment in terms of the Circular dated 21st
January 2012.
2. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the CCL stating as under :
"23. That it is stated that a decision at JCC level has been taken on
30.12.2011 wherein it has been decided to re-consider the cases of
employment on compassionate ground which were earlier rejected on
the ground of delay beyond 6 months from the date of death of the
employee upto 1 ½ year of delay from the date of death of employee,
by a Circular dated 21.01.2012.
24. That it is stated that the petitioner never applied for
consideration of his case terms of the Circular dated 21.01.2012.
25. That it is stated that the Circular dated 21.01.2012 was issued
way back in the year 2012 with an intent to give opportunity of
immediate financial relief to the distressed family members as such
obviously the purpose and objective of circular after a further
distance of time is defeated. It is evident that the petitioner delayed in
applying in reference to the circular dated 21-01-2012. the delay
attributable on the part of the petitioner for 5 and ½ years in making
application goes to the root of the case to the effect that there was no
financial distress.
26. That even further petitioner in reference to the circular dated
21-01-2012 never applied before the management earlier at any stage
of time and in that respect petitioner relied upon the purported
representations dated 09-05-2013 and 13-07- 2016 being annexure 10
and 11 respectively to the writ petition are categorically denied and
disputed. Fact of the matter remains that no such representations
have ever been received. The purported representations are
manufactured documents to make out a case. The purported
representations did not contents any docated number."
3. Through a supplementary counter-affidavit dated 29th June
2018, the CCL has provided further information that pursuant to a decision
taken at Joint Consultation Committee (JCC) on 30 th December 2011 the
applications for compassionate appointment which were barred by delays
ranging between six months to one and half year were considered. However,
as per the records of CCL the representations dated 09 th May 2013 and 13th
July 2016 allegedly submitted by the petitioner were never received.
4. It is well-settled that the compassionate appointment offered to
the dependent of the deceased employee is not strictly in tune with the
constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The object behind any scheme of compassionate appointment is to provide
immediate relief to the family in distress. Therefore, the dependent of an
ex-employee who has died in harness has no vested right to seek
appointment.
5. In "Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC
138 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"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."
6. Recently, in "Central Coalfields Limited v. Parden Oraon"
2021 SCC OnLine SC 299, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to
enable the family to tide 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 signficant lapse of time and after the crisis is over."
7. While so, the family which suffered ill fate in the year 1997
when father of the writ petitioner died in harness cannot be offered any
solace at this distant point of time.
8. The writ petition being devoid of merits, WP(S) No. 1904 of
2017 is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
Tanuj
