Chief General Manager vs Shri Moh. Naseem Siddiqui
2023 Latest Caselaw 4141 MP

                                                                       1
                                        IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                                  BEFORE
                                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                           ON THE 16 th OF MARCH, 2023
                                                          WRIT PETITION No. 913 of 2017

                                       BETWEEN:-
                                       CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER WESTERN COAL FIELDS
                                       LTD. KANHAN AREA PO DUNGARIA CHHINDWARA
                                       (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....PETITIONER
                                       (BY SHRI ANOOP NAIR - ADVOCATE)

                                       AND
                                       SHRI MOH. NASEEM SIDDIQUI S/O NOT MENTION
                                       OCCUPATION: ZONAL MAHAMANTRI C.MEWA ZONAL
                                       VEKOLI SHAKHA WARD NO.10 GUDHI POST
                                       PALACHAURI CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                 .....RESPONDENT
                                       (BY SHRI MAKBOOL KHAN - ADVOCATE AND MS. SANA KHAN -
                                       ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT)

                                             This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                                       following:
                                                                        ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the Western Coalfields Limited being aggrieved of award dated 17.06.2016 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur whereby learned Tribunal has allowed an application on behalf of the Union seeking compassionate appointment for the ward of the deceased.

Signature Not Verified Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that deceased workman Shri SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Ramlal died in harness on 1996, claim was put forward by the mother of the Date: 2023.03.23 16:55:01 IST

claimant Kumari Manisha seeking appointment for Kumari Manisha which was

rejected by the petitioner on 27.10.1997 mentioning therein that there is no provision for grant of compassionate appointment to a female dependant of a deceased employee.

Thereafter, another application was moved through Union of Employees on 16.03.2004 which was highly belated and without adverting to the aspect of delay and laches. Learned Tribunal has allowed second application, overlooking a fact that decision of the petitioner dated 27.10.1997 was never put to challenge by the claimants.

Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (Since after

marriage Smt. Madhuri Santosh Koli) decided on 30th September, 2022 in Civil Appeal No.6938/2022.

Similarly, reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court in Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Anil Badyakar and Others, (2009)13 SCC, 112.

It is also submitted that as per the additional return submitted before the Tribunal, it was claimed that only mother is entitled to claim compassionate appointment and not the daughter. It is also submitted that now daughter Manisha is since married, there is no point in extending benefit of compassionate appointment in her favour as she cannot be said to be dependant on the deceased Ramlal.

Reference is made to Annexure P-5 which is the statement of mother of the claimant namely Smt. Jugna Bai w/o late Shri Ramlal.

Reading statements, it is submitted that Jugna Bai has mentioned in her Signature Not Verified SAN cross-examination that Manisha is married.

Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2023.03.23 16:55:01 IST Shri Maqbool Khan, learned counsel for the claimant Manisha submits

that Manisha has not performed any marriage. In fact, it is Jugna Bai who performed marriage after death of her husband Ramlal and she is living separately. It is submitted that in fact first application was moved by Jugna Bai claiming compassionate appointment for her daughter Manisha as is evident from Annexure M-3. It is submitted that Smt. Jugna Bai had sworn an affidavit on 03.11.1997, Annexure M-6, as is available on record mentioning therein that employment be given to her daughter Manisha in place of her husband late Shri Ramlal.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, as far as, aspect of denial of employment to female dependent is concerned that is already dealt with by Full Bench of this Court in Meenakshi Dubey Vs. Madhya Pradessh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. and Others, (2020) 1 MPLJ 657(FB): AIR 2020 MP 60 , and it is laid down to say that policy cannot discriminate between male and female dependant of a deceased employee.

On the record, memorandum of agreement, namely National Coal Wage Agreement-VI dated 23.12.2000 is available. In Clause 9.4.0 (iii) unmarried daughter is also covered under the definition of dependent. This Clause clearly mentions that the dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son.Thus,

submission made by Shri Anoop Nair that daughter is not dependant and is not entitled to compassionate appointment is not made out.

As far as, decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vadhate (supra) is concerned, is on a different aspect. It Signature Not Verified SAN

says that the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2023.03.23 16:55:01 IST

hardship. Married daughter cannot be said to be dependant on her deceased

father/mother and, therefore, she is not entitled to grant of compassionate appointment.

Though in Annexure P-5, mother Jugna Bai has said that Manisha is married but has admitted in cross-examination that she had not seen her living a married life. There is no marriage certificate brought on record nor any other documentary evidence is brought on record, therefore, there is no iota of doubt to disbelieve the statements given by Shri Maqbool Khan that Manisha is unmarried.

Besides this, now law has further evolved and it is held by the Full Bench of this Court in Meenakshi Dubey (supra) that even married daughter is entitled to compassionate appointment.

Therefore, when tested on all these aspects and taking into consideration a a fact that India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 which includes rights of women and children, the act of a public entity namely Western Coalfields denying compassionate appointment on the basis of gender discrimination does not auger well with the spirit of the Indian Constitution specially the directive principles and the fundamental rights enshrined therein.

When the provisions contained in the subsequent policy available on record are read, then decision of the authorities to deny compassionate appointment cannot be upheld. Learned Tribunal has dealt with all these aspects.

As far as aspect of delay is concerned, though reliance is placed on the

Signature Not Verified SAN judgment of Supreme Court in Anil Badyakar (supra) wherein it is held that

Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any Date: 2023.03.23 16:55:01 IST

time in future. It cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time when crises is over will be not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as, it is not the case of the petitioner that after denial of appointment to the claimant Manisha on account of gender discrimination crisis came to an end and their arbitrary and discriminatory act will have to be upheld only because of delay in proceedings. In fact, there is no delay in the proceedings.

Admittedly, Manisha lost her father in 1997, she lost her brother in 2002, her mother started living separately that means that she had abandoned her girl child. There is no evidence of any marriage performed by Manisha so to attract ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vadhate (supra).

When all these facts are cumulatively taken into consideration then when it is already held that as per the policy unmarried daughter is a dependant on a deceased and she could not have been denied compassionate appointment either on the ground of gender discrimination or on the ground of female being not entitled to compassionate appointment, whole action of the petitioner is illegal and void ab initio and deserves to be set aside which has been set aside by the learned CGIT. This judgment finds support from the law laid down by the Full Bench in Meenakshi Dubey (supra). There is no error apparent in the impugned award, calling for interference, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Tabish

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2023.03.23 16:55:01 IST