The main legal point established in the judgment is that a married daughter would fall within the ambit of a dependent of the deceased under the provisions of the National Coal Wage Agreement VI, Chapter IX, Clause 9.3.3, and 9.3.4.

ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs :

“(i) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case and grant the compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

(ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to grant all consequential and other benefit to the petitioner.

(iii) Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest o justice.

(iv) That, the Hon'ble court please to quash the impugned order dated 17.03.2013.”

2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that, the father-in-law of the petitioner namely Late Vifal Ram was an regular and permanent employee of the respondents and his designation was D.C. Driller in the respondent Department. Working in such capacity, he was died on 16.09.2009, further the son of the late Vifal Ram namely Late Anjoy Say is died earlier on 16.10.2007, hence the petitioner is being the daughter-in-law is legally entitled to get compassionate appointment, hence applied for the compassionate appointment before the respondent authorities.

3. The wife of Late Vifal Ram is having the age of 56 years and not able to do labour work, hence she has given her No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner, hence the petitioner is only the legal heir of Late Vifal Ram. During the course of civil suit, the respondent no. 1 to 3 had filed their reply before the Civil Judge, Class-I, Chirmiri, District Koriya and stated that as per National Coal Wage Agreement Chapter No.9, Clause No. 9.3.3, it is provided that the real dependent upon the deceased is wife and not the daughter-in-law. Daughter-in-law not comes within the ambit of dependent and as per definition, the petitioner is indirectly dependent upon the deceased late Vifal Ram, hence she is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. It is further stated that the wife of late Vifal Ram is entitled to get monetary compensation till the age of 60, hence the petitioner cannot be awarded compassionate appointment and accordingly her application/suit claim for grant of compensation had been dismissed. The Court came to the conclusion that such jurisdiction has not awarded to the Court, hence the suit has been dismissed stating that for a compassionate appointment or issue direction to grant of compassionate appointment is not within the jurisdiction of the said Court, hence the suit has been dismissed.

4. The learned trial Court framed 3 issues and dismissed the suit without ascertaining the fact that the petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment. The petitioner for establishing her case for compassionate appointment filed all the relevant documents before the respondent authorities. On one hand the respondent no. 1 to 3 are stated that the daughter-in-law (Bahu) is not entitled to get compassionate appointment as per their own policy, but on the other hand the petitioner applied under Right to Information Act to get information about the compassionate appointment of one of the employee Late Shankar same is communicated to the petitioner that after death of late Shankar his daughter-in-law (Bahu) Smt. Manmati has given the compassionate appointment.

5. After the unfortunate and untimely death of Late Vifal Ram father-in-law of petitioner, the respondents had given monetary compensation to the wife of late Vifal Ram and promised to give benefit till the age of 60 year of her. Before the trial Court, the wife of Late Vifal Ram namely Fulbasiya @ Fulsiya had given one affidavit stating that, she has no problem if the compassionate appointment has been awarded to her daughter-in-law namely Neelu (Petitioner). After receiving the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, the respondent authorities communicated the petitioner that daughter-in-law is not entitled to get compassionate appointment