The court reaffirmed that the post-mortem report is the definitive evidence for claims of compassionate appointment, overriding employer committee findings on medical causes of death.

SUJOY PAUL, A.C.J.

1. Heard Mr. Arjun Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shyamal Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondents on admission.

2. This is second visit of the petitioners/Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) to this court about the claim of compassionate appointment by dependents upon death of Shri Nirmal Chandra Dey, an employee of SAIL, who died in harness on 25.01.2016.

3. Draped in brevity, the admitted facts between the parties are that Shri Nirmal Chandra Dey was an employee of SAIL, who fell down during duty hours in the industry and was taken to hospital run by SAIL. On 25th January, 2016, he fell down at around 12:15 p.m. and when he was taken to hospital, after getting treatment, he expired at around 2:20 p.m.

4. This is also admitted fact that for the purpose of grant of compassionate benefit, circular dated 14^th December, 2010 holds the field. Since the claim of the dependants for compassionate appointment could not fetch any favourable result, first O.A. No.350/1742/2016 was filed by the widow and the son of the deceased employee before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, allowed the said application which became subject matter of challenge in WPCT 119 of 2022 before this court. The SAIL in the said petition urged that the governing circular/guideline is the guideline dated 14th December, 2010 and reliance on a different circular by the Tribunal is bad in law. Secondly, it is submitted that although the post- mortem report of Shri Nirmal Chandra Dey was prepared which suggests that reason of death is “head injury ante-mortem in nature”. Fact remains that the SAIL constituted a committee of 3 members which considered the same aspect and came to hold that the death of the deceased employee was “a natural death due to cardiac failure”.

Contention of SAIL:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this court, in no uncertain terms, made it clear that the guideline dated 14th December, 2010 will govern the question of grant of compassionate benefits. The employer offered the benefits arising out of Clause 5.1.1 to the family members, but they refused to take the same. They are not covered under Clause 3.1.A and 5.2.1. To elaborate, it is submitted that this court by judgment dated 01.08.2023 in aforesaid matter observed that the committee so constituted was competent to ascertain the attending facts and circumstances regarding the death of the person. In view of the observation of this court, it was open to the SAIL to consider the report dated 06.04.2016 prepared by 3 member committee formed by the SAIL.

6. The SAIL by order dated 16.09.2023 rejected the claim of the dependants by holding that the 3 member committee‟s report makes it clear that employee died a natural death due to cardiac failure on 25.01.2016 and the case does not qualify for compassionate appointment. The Tribunal by impugned dated 20.09.2024 set aside the said rejection order and came to hold that in view of the findings given by the High Court in the previous round of litigation, it was no more open to the employer to discard the post-mortem report and rely on 3 members‟ committee report.

7. The bone of contention of learned counsel for the SAIL is based on the observation of this court mentioned in paragraph 13 of the judgment dated 01.08.2023, wherein this court observed that the members of the committee were “executives” of the petitioners and it would not be sufficient to ascertain the medical grounds for his death, excepting ascertaining the attending facts and c