Jharkhand High Court
Rubi Sinha vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited (Bccl) on 1 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 836 of 2019
Rubi Sinha ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL), through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Dhanbad.
2. The Director (P) , BCCL, Dhanbad.
3. The General Manager (P)/APM, PB Area, BCCL, Dhanbad.
4. The Deputy Manager (P), MPL RR Department, BCCL, Dhanbad.
....Respondents
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
-----
For the Petitioner(s) : M/s Manoj Tandon, Neha Bhardwaj and
Adamya Kerketta, Advocates.
For the respondent(s) : M/s Amit Kr. Das & Shivam U. Sahay, Advocates.
----
C.A.V. On 20.2.2023 Pronounced on: 01 /09 /2023.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order
dated 10.11.2018 (Annexure-8), whereby the claim for compassionate
appointment of the petitioner was rejected. Further a prayer has been made to
appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in lieu of death of her father-
Kishori Lal, who died in harness on 22.10.2010, being an employee of Bharat
Coking Coal Limited.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have
wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner on a non est ground. It is the case of
the petitioner that there cannot be any distinction between a married daughter and
an unmarried daughter while considering compassionate appointment. As per the
petitioner, the right, which has accrued in favour of the petitioner being the
daughter of late employee cannot be taken away by the respondents. It is further
contended that as per the Hindu Succession Act, the petitioner being the
successor and Class-I legal heir of her late father, is entitled for compassionate
appointment. It is further submitted that the marriage of the petitioner cannot come
in the way of appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground.
3. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent-company submitted
that the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected. The compassionate
appointment is governed by a scheme, so far as respondents are concerned, and
the scheme does not provide for grant of compassionate appointment to a married
daughter. He further submits that in this case, the petitioner is a married daughter
as such she does not fall within the scheme of compassionate appointment. He
relying upon several judgments submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Maharashtra& Another Vs. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate reported in
2022 SCC Online SC 1327 and in the case of Director of Treasuries in
Karnataka & Another versus V. Somyashree reported in (2021) 12 SCC 20 has
held that married daughter is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment
if she is not eligible as per the scheme.
4. After hearing the parties, I find that the facts of this case are admitted.
The father of the petitioner late Kishori Lal was an employee of M/s BCCL and he
died on 22.10.2010 in harness leaving behind his wife Shanti Devi, this petitioner,
another daughter Saroj Sinha and son- Rajesh Kumar. Admittedly, at the time of
death of the employee, the petitioner was married to Sri Sanjay Kumar Sinha.
During course of argument, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband
of the petitioner is a practicing lawyer at Civil Court, Dhanbad. The brother of this
petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, which was rejected on 3.9.2011
on the ground that he was not medically fit for appointment. The petitioner
thereafter applied for compassionate appointment, but her claim was rejected on
3/4-10-2016 on the ground that the petitioner is a married daughter. The petitioner
challenged the aforesaid order in WPS No. 5456 of 2017, which was disposed of
on 4.9.2018. The learned Single Judge set aside the order of rejection and
directed the respondent authority to re-consider the same and liberty was given to
the petitioner to produce evidence to show that she was fully dependent upon the
deceased. It was also held that if the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate
appointment, then the monetary compensation to the mother should be extended
from the due date. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondents
considered the case of the petitioner and held that the petitioner was not
dependent upon the deceased as her husband is a professional advocate
practising in Civil Court, Dhanbad and she is residing with her husband at J.C.
Mallik Road, Dhanbad. It was further held that the petitioner was not residing with
the deceased-father after her marriage, thus the application of the petitioner was
rejected as she was not dependent upon the deceased.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra &
Another versus Madhuri Maruti Vidhate reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1327, has dealt with the object of grant of compassionate appointment. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 12 has held as under:-
12. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an
exception to the general rule of appointment in the public
services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased
dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and
without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of
pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration
the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided,
the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a
provision is made in the rules to provide gainful
employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who
may be eligible for such employment. 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 such family a post much less a post held by the
deceased.
6. Further, at paragraph 11 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court relied upon the case of Govind Prakash Verma versus LIC
reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289, in which the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal versus
State of Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 was relied upon by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. It is necessary to quote paragraph 11 of Madhuri Maruti Vidhate
(supra), which reads as under: -
11. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi
Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653, this Court had an
occasion to consider the object and purpose of appointment
on compassionate ground and considered the decision of
this Court in the case of Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC,
reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289, in paras 21 and 26, it is
observed and held as under:-
"21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind
Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289, has been
considered subsequently in several decisions. But,
before we advert to those decisions, it is necessary to
note that the nature of compassionate appointment
had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar
Nagpal v. State of Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v.
State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138]. The principles
which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal
[Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4
SCC 138] have been subsequently followed in a
consistent line of precedents in this Court. These
principles are encapsulated in the following extract :
(Umesh Kumar Nagpal case [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v.
State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138], SCC pp. 139-40,
para 2)
"2. ... As a rule, appointments in the public services
should be made strictly on the basis of open
invitation of applications and merit. No other mode
of appointment nor any other consideration is
permissible. Neither the Governments nor the
public authorities are at liberty to follow any other
procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by
the rules for the post. However, to this general rule
which is to be followed strictly in every case, there
are some exceptions carved out in the interests of
justice and to meet certain contingencies. One
such exception is in favour of the dependants of an
employee dying in harness and leaving his family
in penury and without any means of livelihood. In
such cases, out of pure humanitarian
consideration taking into consideration the fact
that unless some source of livelihood is provided,
the family would not be able to make both ends
meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide
gainful employment to one of the dependants of
the deceased who may be eligible for such
employment. 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."
7. In the aforesaid judgment of Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court also relied upon its decision in the case of Director of
Treasuries (supra) and in the case of N.C. Santosh versus State of Karnataka
and Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617.
8. The appointment on compassionate ground is thus an exception to
the constitutional provision. Since the scheme of compassionate appointment is
an exception to the provision of constitution, Rules for scheme framed for grant of
compassionate appointment should be strictly followed. There cannot be any
deviation from the said scheme. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.
Sivamurthy v. State of A.P. and Ors reported in (2008) 13 SCC 730 has held
that there should be strict compliance of the scheme of the compassionate
appointment.
9. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is a scheme of compassionate
appointment which is incorporated in the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA).
It is admitted by the parties that as per the said scheme there is no provision to
grant compassionate appointment to a married daughter. The Division Bench of
this Court in the case of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd & Ors vs Sufia Baa reported
in LPA No 161 of 2022 considering the very scheme of NCWA has held that
compassionate appointment can be made or directed to be made only if it comes
within the four corners of the rules or scheme framed thereunder.
10. This Court in the case of WP(S) No. 4200 of 2019 (Subasiya Devi vs
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors.) considering the provision of NCWA and
several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as per the scheme the
married daughter is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Be it noted that
the scheme is not under challenge here.
11. So far as dependency is concerned, I find that it is an admitted case
that the petitioner is residing with her husband, who is a practicing lawyer at Civil
Court, Dhanbad. It is also admitted case that the petitioner is residing with her
husband and not with the family of the deceased employee i.e. father though a
plea has been raised that her father was providing some monetary assistance to
the petitioner, yet the same cannot to be a ground to consider that the petitioner
was solely dependent and was residing with the deceased employee.
12. Considering the factual aspect the respondents have arrived at a
conclusion that the petitioner was not wholly dependent upon the deceased-
employee nor come within the four corners of the scheme. I find no illegality in the
impugned order dated 10.11.2018, whereby the claim of the petitioner for her
appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. This rejection will not
come in the way of the wife of the deceased to claim monetary compensation.
13. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Anu/-CP2
