IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the binding nature of the National Coal Wages Agreement, the purpose of dependent employment as relief from immediate hardship, and the concessionary nature of compassionate appointment.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that the respondents be directed to provide dependent employment and also directed to provide monetary compensation to the petitioner’s family equal to the minimum wage per month from the date of the death of the father of the petitioner i.e., on 12-8-2008 till the dependent employment is provided to the petitioner and also prayed that the payment of compensation which shall be recovered from the erring officials of the respondent company.

2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner’s father late Jogiram was working as sweeper in the Main Hospital of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) in Korba and he died due to illness on 12-8-2008 in the Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. As such, in terms of Clause 9.3.0 read with Clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA) VI and in terms of Clause 9.3.0 (I) of the NCWA, the petitioner’s brother has filed an application for dependent employment. On 8-8-2013 the petitioner’s mother namely Vijaya Bai was informed by the respondents that Mahesh Kumar Daharia who is elder brother of the present petitioner is not entitled to get dependent employment in place of the ex-employee as his wife is already in service. The petitioner has also annexed the document dated 08.07.1999 to show that similarly situated persons have been granted dependent employment, but the case of the petitioner, has not been considered. In the year 2016 elder brother of the petitioner obtained employment in place of their mother who took voluntary retirement from service of SECL. As such, petitioner’s family decided to pursue the matter for dependent employment to the petitioner as per the terms of NCWA VI & VII, which was applicable at the time of death of the petitioner’s father. Thus, he has submitted representation on 19.11.2018 and 23.06.2018 for grant of compassionate appointment, which has not been considered, therefore, he has filed present petition and has prayed for grant of dependent employment.

3. Respondents/SECL has filed their return contending that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the count of delay and latches as the petitioner has filed the writ petition after 11 years of death of his father for grant of dependent employment. It has been further contended by the respondents-SECL in their return that at the time of death of father of the petitioner, petitioner's mother namely Vijaya Bai was also in service in same place ie., main hospital, Korba, SECL. After death of petitioner’s father, elder son Mahesh Dahariya who is elder brother of the petitioner was nominated by his mother for compassionate appointment in the SECL, but as per rule and prevailing practice as well as after detailed examination of the proposal/decision of competent authority, the claim of the elder brother of the petitioner was rejected on the basis of the service of his mother. Needless to say that the above decision was communicated to the claimant by specific remark that “compassionate appointment is meant for immediate hardship of family of the deceased employee and in the instant case, wife of ex-employee is already working in the company, hence employment in respect of Mahesh Kumar Dahariya cannot be considered as family is not in the immediate hardship”. It has been further contended that in the year 2016 the petitioner’s elder brother Shri Mahesh Kumar Dahariya got employment in the company against Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme (FVRS) floated by the SECL as his mother Smt. Vijaya Bai opted FVRS. It has been further contended that since the matter relates to Company’s Centralized Policy Board Decision, therefore, the matter was placed before the 80th Director (Personnel) Meeting wherein it has been clarified that in case of wife of deceased employee is already in employment, the question of further employment or cash compensation in lieu of employment does not arise. Co