Jharkhand High Court
Suraj Muni Kumari vs Central Coal Field Ltd. Through ... on 27 March, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 3774 of 2016
Suraj Muni Kumari, daughter of late Daha Ram Manjhi, resident of
Village Sidhu Kanu Nagar, P.O. Rajrappa Project, P.S. Rajrappa
District Ramgarh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Central Coal Field Ltd. through Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Central Coal Field Ltd, Darbhanga House, P.O. G.P.O.,
Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi, District Ranchi
... ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sarju Prasad, Advocate
: Mr. Sunil Kr. Mahto, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. A. K. Das, Advocate
---
11/27.03.2023
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"for issuance of quashing the order contained in letter No.
PD/MP/Monetary Benefit/1517 dated 16/04/2011 issued under
signature of General Manager (P & IR) by which the petitioner Suraj
Muni Kumari has been offered Payment of Monetary compensation in
lieu of Employment under para 9.3.2/9.5.0 of NCWA VI and for issue
an appropriate writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) in the nature of
mandamus, commanding upon the respondent authorities to appoint
the petitioner on compassionate ground quashing the order contained
in letter No. PD/MP/Monetary Benefit/1517 dated 16/04/2011 issued
under the signature of General manager (P & IR) by which the
petitioner Suraj Muni Kumari has been offered Payment of Monetary
benefit in lieu of Employment under para 9.3.2/9.5.0 of NCWA VI and
for issue an appropriate writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) in the nature of
mandamus, commanding upon the respondent authorities to appoint
the petitioner on compassionate ground under para 9.3.2/9.5.0 of
NCWA VI.
And/Or
For grant of any other relief(s) to which the petitioner is legally
entitled for."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has moved this Court earlier in W.P. (S) No. 4934/2005
seeking a direction upon the respondents to consider the petitioner's
prayer for compassionate appointment on the ground that her father
was an employee of Central Coal Fields Limited and had died in
harness on 29.09.1991. The learned counsel submits that the said writ
petition was disposed of directing the respondent authorities to
reconsider the petitioner's case in proper perspective and take
appropriate decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order. He
submits that it was also mentioned in the order that it was at the
discretion of the respondent to consider the prayer of the petitioner for
grant of compassionate appointment or alternatively, to pay her
reasonable monetary compensation. The decision was to be taken
within a period of three months.
4. The learned counsel submits that pursuant to the order passed
by this Court, a decision has been taken which is contained at
Annexure-2 to the writ petition, wherein monetary compensation has
been sanctioned instead of grant of compassionate appointment. The
learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is
entitled for compassionate appointment and therefore, the monetary
compensation sanctioned in favour of the petitioner is not acceptable
to the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the
other hand, has submitted that on the date of death of the father of the
petitioner, the petitioner was a minor, aged about 5 years. The learned
counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 493/2015 to submit that in that case
also, the writ petitioner was only 8 years of age at the time of death of
his father and the CCL could not even keep the dependent in live
roster for the purposes of employment and it was held that the minor
dependent was not entitled to compassionate appointment. The learned
counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 313/2018 decided on
04.12.2018. The learned counsel submits that as per the National Coal
Wage Agreement, the minor dependent below 12 years of age could
not be kept in live roster. The learned counsel submits that at the
relevant point of time i.e., 29.09.1991 on the date of death of her
father, the minimum age for keeping the minor dependent in live
roster was 15 years. The learned counsel has submitted that the
petitioner was neither eligible for appointment at the time of death of
her father nor she was eligible for being kept in live roster for
employment in future. The learned counsel submits that in such
circumstances, there is no illegality in the impugned order granting
monetary compensation in lieu of employment.
6. The learned counsel has also submitted that if the petitioner
approaches the respondent authority, then there is no impediment in
releasing the monetary compensation.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute
that the petitioner was a minor, aged about 5 years, on the date of
death of her father on 29.09.1991 and a writ petition was filed before
this Court by the petitioner being W.P. (S) No. 4934/2005 seeking
compassionate appointment. The writ petition was disposed of vide
order dated 13.04.2009 with a clear direction that the respondents
were to consider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of
compassionate appointment or alternatively to pay her a reasonable
monetary compensation. This Court finds that the respondent authority
has exercised its discretion and has directed payment of monetary
compensation. This Court also finds that in view of the judgment
relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner
was not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground as the
petitioner was a minor on the date of death of her father and
considering her age, her name could not even be kept in live roster. In
the judgment passed by this court in LPA No. 313 of 2018 decided on
04.12.2018, while considering the claim of compassionate
appointment of a minor dependent, it has been held as follows:-
"The basis for obtaining employment under the aforesaid
Chapter and specifically in terms of Clause 9.3.0 and 9.4.0 is
the death of the subsisting employee. If that is the foundation for
applying for job on compassionate ground, then irrespective of
the date on which application is made, minor claimant for the
job has to be of specified age of 12 years or above on the date
of death of the employee of the coal company. In our view, that
would be the proper interpretation of the aforesaid Clause."
Similar view has been taken in the judgment passed in LPA No. 493
of 2015 decided on 05.04.2016 as follows:-
"Admittedly, the petitioner was only 8 years of age at the time
of death of his father therefore, the respondent-CCL could not
keep him in the live roster for the purpose of employment after
attaining the majority. This was the specific stand taken by the
respondent-CCL before the learned Writ Court which was
considered by the learned Writ Court and finally observed as
under:
"This appears to be a hard case, but cases of compassionate
appointment or such social security measures are to be
considered as per the scheme or agreement entered into
between the Management and the Workman, especially in
Industrial Undertaking like the respondent-CCL. The scheme
does not permit the minor below 12 years of age for being kept
in live roster. The denial of petitioner's claim cannot be said
to suffer from legal infirmity and violation of laid down
provision of N.C.W.A."
We, finding no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned
Single Judge on any count, decline to interfere with the same."
8. In view of the aforesaid findings and the judicial
pronouncements, the prayer of the petitioner (who was only 5 years of
age on the date of death of her father) seeking direction upon the
respondent to grant compassionate appointment, is not sustainable in
the eyes of law. This Court also does not find any illegality or
perversity in the impugned order dated 16.04.2011 calling for any
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. However, so far as monetary compensation is concerned, the
petitioner may approach the General Manager (P & IR), CCL, Ranchi
for payment of monetary compensation by filing a representation
along with a copy of this order and a copy of the entire writ records.
10. Upon filing of such representation, the aforesaid authority is
directed to release the monetary compensation in favour of the
petitioner, if not already released, after due identification within a
period of 15 days from the date of filing of such representation.
11. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid
direction/observation.
12. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
