Jharkhand High Court

Jagdish Das vs Central Coalfields Limited on 4 February, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         W.P.(S) No.7260 of 2016
                                     ------

Jagdish Das, son of Late Etwari Das, resident of Village Bagjobra, P.O. Beniadih, P.S. and District Giridih.

... ... Petitioner Versus

1. Central Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, having its Head Office at Darbhanga House, P.O., G.P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

2. Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, P.O., G.P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.

3. General Manager (P & IR), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, P.O., G.P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.

4. General Manager (Bokaro & Kargali), Central Coalfields Limited, Kargali, P.O. & P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro.

5. Project Officer, Giridih Project, Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. Beniadih, P.S. & District Giridih.

6. Head Master, Middle School, Beniadih, P.O., P.S. and District Giridih.

... ... Respondents

------

                CORAM       : SRI ANANDA SEN, J
                                    ------
   For the Petitioner(s) :       Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate
   For the Respondent(s):        Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate
                                 Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, AC to AAG-IA
                                     ------

17/ 04.02.2025

Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and

learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged

the Memo No.PO(G)/PD/9.3.0/16/1713 dated 11.09.2016

(Annexure-4 to the writ petition), whereby the claim of the petitioner

for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the

respondent-Central Coalfields Limited, on two grounds.

3. The first ground is that the claim for compassionate

appointment of the petitioner was made after 1 ½ years from the

date of death of his father, which is beyond the period which has

been prescribed by the respondents in their circulars.

The second ground which has been taken by department

is that at the time of making such application, the petitioner has

crossed the maximum age limit of 35 years, thus, he is not eligible

for getting compassionate appointment.

4. Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel representing

the petitioner, submits that earlier an application claiming

compassionate appointment was filed by the younger brother of the

petitioner namely Shankar Das. As Shankar Das had filed the

application annexing documents, but there was no consent of this

petitioner and his mother and the sign of this petitioner was forged,

thus he objected on 03.02.2010. As the said objection was raised

within 1 ½ years from the date of death of his father, the respondents

could not have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that

this application was filed beyond 1 ½ years of death of his father. He

further submits that ultimately the dispute between the brothers was

resolved and on 10.12.2012, the mother of this petitioner i.e. the

wife of the deceased, approved appointment of this petitioner and

subsequently on 13.12.2012, the petitioner filed an application for

grant of compassionate appointment. As per Mr. Sahani, the claim

for compassionate appointment of the petitioner should be reckoned

from 03.02.2010 i.e. when the petitioner objected the claim put forth

by his brother Shankar Das, which is well within 1 ½ years from the

date of death of his father. It was wrong on part of the respondents

to conclude that his application is beyond the period of limitation. So

far as the other ground is concerned, he submits that now it has

been well settled by the decision of this Court that the age of the

claimant as on the date of death of the deceased should be

considered for grant of compassionate appointment. As per the

admission of the respondents themselves, which is apparent from

para-24 of the counter affidavit, the age of this petitioner on the date

of death of his father (31.10.2008), would be nearly 30 years, which

is less than 35 years. That being the position, on the date of death

of father of the petitioner, when the petitioner admittedly has not

crossed 35 years of age, rejection of the claim of the petitioner on

the ground of overage is also bad.

5. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel representing the

respondent-CCL submits that father of the petitioner admittedly died

on 31.10.2008. He submits that the petitioner had applied for grant

of compassionate appointment on 13.12.2012. The limitation period

for applying for compassionate appointment in the respondent

Company is 1 ½ years from the date of death of the deceased but at

the relevant time, it was one year. Even if 1 ½ years is considered to

be applicable, then also the petitioner's application is beyond the said

period which is in fact is after four years from the date of death. He

submits that this period of limitation prescribed, has already been

considered by this Court in several judgments either by the Single

Bench or by the Division Bench. As per him, the petitioner has not

filed any application claiming compassionate appointment on

03.02.2010 and the petitioner has failed to bring on record any such

application. He submits that the respondents are not admitting that

the petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment on

03.02.2010. The document of 03.02.2010 is only an objection of the

petitioner, wherein he has raised his objection in relation to

appointment of his brother Shankar Das, on the ground that the

documents which Shankar Das has filed along with the application,

are forged documents, which are not signed by the petitioner, for

which an enquiry was also held, but the petitioner failed to appear

before the said Enquiry Committee. Thus, Shankar Das was

recommended for appointment but ultimately Shankar Das was not

appointed as his mother later on did not agree to his appointment,

and had filed an application on 10.12.2012 in favour of this

petitioner. So far as the age of the petitioner is concerned, he

submits that on the date of application which is 13.12.2012, the

petitioner was more than 35 years of age as per the service excerpts

filled up by the deceased father of this petitioner. Thus, the petitioner

is not entitled for any relief.

6. The instant writ petition relates to grant of compassionate

appointment. Appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of

recruitment. The same is an exception to the Constitutional provision. The

basic purpose of compassionate appointment is to grant immediate

financial relief to the family members of the deceased employee. To

overcome the sudden financial crisis of the family of the deceased

employee, compassionate appointment is granted. The purpose of

providing compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship

due to the sudden death of the bread winner of the family. It is the

immediate financial crisis which needs to be addressed by giving

compassionate appointment. Due to passage of time, the family

overcomes the immediate financial crisis thus, the need of

compassionate appointment does not remain after lapse of a

considerable period.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West

Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC

OnLine SC 219, at para-32 and 57, held as hereunder:-

32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge:

i. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

iv. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. v. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source.

57. The existence of a policy issued by the State Government is a sine qua non for making appointments on compassionate basis, vide Mumtaz Yunus Mulani (Smt.) v. State of Maharashtra (supra); State Bank of India v. Surya Narain Tripathi, (2014) 15 SCC 739. The appointments must follow the stipulations made in the policy. It is therefore a no-brainer that in the absence of a policy governing compassionate appointment to posts under a local authority, no appointment could be made to such an authority on compassionate grounds."

Further, at para-31 (vii), while referring to the judgment

of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shashi Kumar reported in

(2019) 3 SCC 653, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general

rule. Any appointment to any public post in the service of the State

has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles

14 and 16 of the Constitution. Since the compassionate appointment

is granted dehors the Constitutional Scheme, and is on basis of a

Scheme formulated by the employer, the Scheme should be strictly

followed and there cannot not be any deviation from the said

Scheme. It is an admitted case that there is a limitation period for

filing an application for compassionate appointment. The same is

1 ½ years from the date of death of the employee. In the instant

case, at the time of death of the employee, the limitation period was

one year. What could be the limitation period in the instant case is

not in dispute as even for the sake of argument, the limitation period

for filing the application is taken to be 1 ½ years, which is prevalent

as on date, the result of this case will not change, as father of the

petitioner has admittedly died on 31.10.2008.

8. It is an admitted case of both the parties that the third

son of the deceased i.e. the younger brother of the petitioner namely

Shankar Das, applied for grant of compassionate appointment. The

petitioner objected to the said claim. The document of objection has

neither been brought on record by the petitioner nor by the

respondent-CCL. The fact that an objection was raised would be

evident from Annexure-B to the Counter Affidavit which is a

document of Central Coalfields Limited dated 05.10.2010 which

suggests that the petitioner has objected the claim of appointment

of his brother on compassionate ground.

9. After going through Annexure-B to the counter affidavit,

I find that the petitioner had objected to the said claim on the ground

that the petitioner has not signed the supporting document, rather

the said signature was forged and other necessary documents were

not filed. Nowhere from the said document, I can get a faintest

impression that while objecting the claim for compassionate

appointment of his brother Shankar Das, this petitioner had made a

counterclaim, claiming compassionate appointment of himself.

Merely objecting a claim will not give rise to a

presumption that a counterclaim for compassionate appointment has

been made by the petitioner. At least there should be some assertion

of rights by the petitioner, which is missing in this case. From

Annexure-B, I understand that the petitioner has only objected the

claim of his brother without ascertaining his claim. In absence of any

assertion, it cannot be said that the petitioner had applied for grant

of compassionate appointment on 03.02.2010 itself. His objection

cannot be construed to be his claim for appointment.

10. The document by which the petitioner has claimed

compassionate appointment is dated 13.12.2012. Be it noted that

the said application was filed after the dispute between the brothers

was resolved and the mother on 10.12.2012 granted consent for

grant of compassionate appointment. Thus, for all purpose, the

application for grant of compassionate appointment so far as this

petitioner is concerned, is to be reckoned from 13.12.2012 and not

from any other date.

11. Now, if we calculate this period from the date of death of

his father, I find that admittedly, the application is much beyond 1 ½

years, rather it is four years. Thus, I come to the conclusion that the

petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointment is

beyond the period of 1 ½ years, which is beyond the period of

limitation as prescribed by the respondents.

12. So far as the second issue is concerned, now it has been

well settled by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.307 of

2018 (The Central Coalfields Limited & Anr. Vs. Fulmatia Devi &

Ors.), and several other judgments passed by the Single bench of

this Court, that it is the age of the applicant on the date of death of

his father which has to be reckoned for the purpose for grant of

compassionate appointment. In this case, para-24 of the counter

affidavit reads as follows:-

"That in the Service-Sheet Excerpts of the deceased employee Petitioner's age is recorded as 10 years as on 01.04.1987 and that being the position he completed 35 years of age on 01.04.2012 i.e. even prior to the date of submission of his Application dated 10.12.2012."

13. From the aforesaid submission of the Central Coalfields

Limited, it is clear that the petitioner was aged less than 35 years,

rather he was of 31 years on the date of death of his father.

14. Thus, the second ground which the respondents have

taken is not in accordance with law, but this will not have any impact

on the final decision of this case as I have already held earlier that

the application of the petitioner is barred by limitation, as the same

is delayed by four years.

15. Another aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that now

sixteen years have lapsed from the date of death of the employee.

The family has survived for this long sixteen years. When the family

has survived for sixteen years, now no compassionate appointment