Lupasi Devi @ Lupshi Devi vs The Central Coal Fields Limited ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2622 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         W.P.(S) No. 979 of 2021
                                   ---------

Lupasi Devi @ Lupshi Devi, W/o Late Sarju Manjhi, R/o Village- Asnagarha (Kanti), P.O.- Dadi, P.S.- Giddi 'A', District-

         Hazaribag.                               ... ... Petitioner
                                    Versus

1. The Central Coal Fields Limited through its Chairman-

cum-Chief Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi

2. The Director Personnel, CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi

3. The Chief Manager (P/MP), CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi

4. The Genral Manager, Argada Area, CCL, Argada, Ramgarh

5. The Project Officer, Giddi 'A' Project, CCL, Giddi, Hazaribag

6. The Staff Officer, Argada Area, CCL, Argada, Ramgarh

7. The Deputy General Manager, (P&IR), CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi ... ... Respondents

---------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Pravin Kumar Pandey, Advocate

---------

06/04.08.2023 Heard Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pravin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL.

The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing of the letter no. 46, dated 06.01.2021 issued by the respondent no. 3, by which the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected.

It has been submitted by Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner that it is an unfortunate case in which the husband of the petitioner who was granted compassionate appointment has completed his period of probation in six months in the month of July itself but he was never confirmed and this is the plea which is being taken by the respondent-CCL while rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. Learned counsel has referred to an internal communication dated 10.03.2011 in order to drive home his point that once a probationer completes his period of probation he should be confirmed immediately as delay in confirmation leads to complications which is apparent in the

present case and the widow is being deprived from being granted compassionate appointment on account of the death of her husband.

Mr. Pravin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL has submitted that since the husband of the petitioner was not a confirmed employe of CCL the petitioner does not have any right in claiming compassionate appointment and, therefore, the impugned order has rightly been passed.

The father-in-law of the petitioner namely Talo Manjhi was an employee of M/s CCL working in Giddi-'A' Colliery who died in harness on 17.12.2015 and the husband of the petitioner being the son of Talo Manjhi was given a provisional appointment on compassionate ground and he was to remain as a Category-I trainee for a period of six months. The period of six months as per the provisional appointment letter was completed in the month of July, 2016. However, the services of the husband of the petitioner was not confirmed and in the meantime he died on 07.09.2016. This led the petitioner to prefer an application for compassionate appointment before the respondent-CCL which was however rejected vide letter no. 46, dated 06.01.2021.

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-CCL, it has been mentioned that the process for post facto confirmation was already being undergone and the husband of the petitioner was called on 15.09.2016 but it appears that prior to the said date the husband of the petitioner had already expired in an accident on 07.09.2016. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was never a confirmed employee of M/s CCL.

In the case of "Central Coalfields Limited versus Rajan and Others" in L.P.A. No. 393 of 2017, while considering a similar issue this Court has observed as follows:

Thus, it is a wrong notion in the mind of the respondent-original petitioner that once the trainee period is over, as stated in clause-1 of the appointment letter of Nageshwar Kumar Mallah there is automatic confirmation into the services of the appellant. It should be kept in mind that unless the employee is confirmed by

the Management, even if the training period mentioned in the appointment letter is over, such employee cannot be labelled as confirmed employee. Confirmation ought to be conferred by the Management. Confirmation cannot be assumed or presumed because of lapse of time. Confirmation cannot be assumed or presumed even if the trainee period is over. These aspects have been lost sight of while deciding the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4342 of 2014 vide judgment and order dated 10th March, 2017.

In view of the above, therefore, the petitioner does not have any subsisting right to claim compassionate appointment since her husband was never confirmed in service by M/s. CCL and, therefore, the impugned letter no. 46, dated 06.01.2021 rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rightly passed which cannot be interfered with by this Court and consequently this writ application stands dismissed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

Alok/-