Jharkhand High Court
Writ vs Central Coalfields Limited on 21 January, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 424 of 2023
Prakash Mahto, aged about 34 years, son of Late Nemchand Mahto,
resident of Govindpur, Quarter No. MQ 133, P.O., P.S. & District -
Bokaro.
....... Writ Petitioner / Appellant
Versus
1. Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Darbhanga House, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Kotwali, District
- Ranchi.
2. C.M.D., Central Coalfields Limited, having his Darbhanga House,
P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Kotwali, District - Ranchi.
3. General Manager, CCL, Kathara Area, P.O. - Swang, P.S. -
Gomia, District - Bokaro.
4. Assistant Manager (Personnel), Swang Washery, P.O. - Swang,
P.S. - Gomia, District - Bokaro.
5. Project Officer, CCL, Swang Washery, P.O. - Swang, P.S. -
Gomia, District - Bokaro.
..... Respondents / Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellant: Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Arpita Sinha, Advocate
---------
08/Dated: 21.01.2025
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral)
1) Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the
respondents.
2) This application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 139
days in filing the appeal. It is stated that on account of demise of
appellant's father and his brother, there was financial hardship, and
that the grandmother of the appellant was also bed-ridden and later,
she succumbed to her illness.
-1 of 5-
3) Having regard to the above circumstances, notwithstanding the
opposition to the condonation of delay by the respondents, this
application is allowed, since we are satisfied that sufficient cause has
been shown for condoning the said period of delay and also because
the delay is not substantial.
4) This appeal is preferred against the judgment 23.02.2023 of the
learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1636 of 2020.
5) The appellant had filed the said writ petition seeking
compassionate appointment in the 1st Respondent-Organisation by
challenging an order dt. 14th April 2020 (Annexure 12 to the writ
petition), whereby the respondents had rejected his claim for
compassionate appointment.
Order dt. 14.04.2020
6) In the order of 14th April 2020, it is mentioned that the Ex-
employee of respondents, by name, Teklal Mahto, died on 15.04.2018
and the mother of the deceased-employee Smt. Lilawati Devi
submitted an application on 16.06.2018 for providing employment to
her elder son, i.e., appellant, in place of her deceased son invoking
Para 9.3.0 of the N.C.W.A.
7) It is further stated in the impugned order dt. 14.04.2020 that a
"brother" would come under the category of an "indirect dependent"
and that the essential factor/ingredient to consider in such a case was
that the indirect dependent must be "residing" with the Ex-employee
and must be almost "wholly dependent" upon the earning of the Ex-
employee.
-2 of 5-
8) It is further stated that since the appellant's name did not
appear in any service-linked records of the deceased-employee, the
case was referred to a Dispute Resolution Committee and the
members of the said Committee recommended (in Annexure-II/C) that
the appellant is elder brother of the deceased-employee, but that
there was no clinching evidence available to establish whether he was
almost wholly dependent and residing with the deceased-employee
and that was why, the appellant's claim for compassionate
appointment was being rejected.
Consideration by the Court
9) A reading of Annexure-II/C, which is the report of the Dispute
Resolution Committee, shows that Nemchand Mahto was previously
employed with the respondents and on his death, late Teklal Mahto
had been appointed on compassionate grounds and the appellant
was mentioned in the family details of his late father Nemchand Mahto
as a son. Therefore, there is no dispute that the appellant was the
elder brother of the deceased-employee.
10) The report of the Committee also shows that the name of the
appellant was mentioned in the Photo Medical Card issued by the
Sr. Personnel Officer of Govindpur Project. His name also appeared in
the Ration Card dt. 14.04.2006 issued by the competent authority
along with the deceased. The mother of the deceased had given an
affidavit that the appellant is her elder son and sought employment for
him in the place of the deceased-employee.
11) The Committee also mentions about examining three
neighbours of the appellant and concludes that the appellant was the
elder brother of the deceased-employee of the respondent; he was
-3 of 5-
normally resident with the deceased at Qtrs. No.MQ/133 Miners
Quarters, Govindpur; and his wife and two children were also residing
in the same quarters along with the mother of the deceased.
12) It is also mentioned in the Committee's report that an affidavit
was sworn by the deceased-employee on 09.03.2016 that he would
take care of his elder brother, i.e., the appellant, and also his mother.
13) However, a perverse finding is recorded by the Committee that
there is no document to show any monetary/pecuniary benefits being
received by the appellant from his deceased brother.
14) We are shocked that such a conclusion was drawn by the
Committee overlooking the fact that the appellant was residing with
the deceased-employee and the deceased-employee himself filed an
affidavit on 09.03.2016 stating that he would look after the appellant
and also his mother.
15) Compassionate appointment is in the nature of a welfare
measure introduced by the State to alleviate the suffering of a family
whose breadwinner has died suddenly.
16) Instead of showing empathy to the deceased's family and
sympathetically considering the appellant's case for compassionate
appointment, a totally perverse view has been taken in the impugned
order which is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable that there was no
clinching evidence available to establish that the appellant was almost
wholly dependent and residing with the deceased-employee.
17) Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge in the impugned order
has supported the action taken by the respondents by taking a view
that in the service book of the deceased-employee it was merely
mentioned that the deceased-employee was "unmarried" and that he
-4 of 5-
had only declared his mother as a dependent and that he had not
mentioned the name of the appellant. The learned Single Judge has
ignored inexplicably the material evidence, i.e., that the deceased-
employee himself gave an affidavit on 09.03.2016 that he would look
after the appellant and also his mother.
18) For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the Single Judge
cannot be sustained.
19) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dt.
23.02.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.1636 of 2020
is set aside; and the said writ petition is allowed and the respondents
are directed to provide compassionate appointment to the appellant
within four weeks. The respondents shall pay cost of Rs.20,000/- to
the appellant.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Manoj/ Pramanik/Cp.2
-5 of 5-
