The main legal point established in the judgment is that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and must be considered in light of the financial condition of the deceased employee's family. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the provisions of the National Coal Wage Agreement and the need for immediate relief to the family in distress.

D.N. Patel, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 905 of 2014 dated 7th October, 2015, whereby, the petition preferred by respondent no.1 (original petitioner) for getting compassionate appointment was allowed and, hence, original respondent no.2 has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. FACTUAL MATRIX:

The father of respondent no.1 (original petitioner) was working with the appellant and during course of his employment, he expired on 9th December, 2004.

The widow of the deceased employee viz. Kumari Bai applied for compassionate appointment on 4th May, 2005.

Upon medical examination, her age was found to be 37- ½ years as on 7th December, 2006. She was offered monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment vide letter dated 13th April, 2007. This monetary compensation was not accepted by the widow of the deceased employee.

The widow of the deceased employee expired on 1st November, 2007.

Now, respondent No.1 (original petitioner), who is claiming himself to be a son of the deceased employee, had applied for compassionate appointment on 3rd July, 2010, whose application was rejected on 24th August, 2010.

By challenging the aforesaid rejection of the application by the appellant, W.P.(C) No. 905 of 2014 was preferred for getting Gratuity with interest, Life Cover Scheme, Benevolent Fund with interest, Provident Fund and arrears of Family Pension with interest and compassionate appointment, which was decided by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 7th October, 2015. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment and order, original respondent no.2 has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

3. Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant (original respondent no.2):

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that respondent no.1 (original petitioner) is claiming himself to be a son of the deceased employee, but, his name is not mentioned in the service book at all nor it is mentioned in the M.T.C. Form-A, Forms-PS-3 and P.S.4 and, hence, he cannot claim compassionate appointment.

After the death of Shiv Dayal Gorh, who expired on 9th December, 2004, his widow viz. Kumari Bai had applied for compassionate appointment on 4th May, 2005. She was already offered monetary compensation on 13th April, 2007. Monetary compensation is always offered in lieu of compassionate appointment. She expired on 1st November, 2007. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that once the widow of the deceased employee was offered monetary compensation and if she dies, further chain of compassionate appointment cannot be extended to other legal heirs. The legal obligation of this appellant comes to an end, no sooner did, one of the legal heirs of the deceased employee is offered either monetary compensation or compassionate appointment.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that assuming without admitting that respondent no.1 (original petitioner) is claiming his right of compassionate appointment, independent of the death of Kumari Bai, then also after six long years, no compassionate appointment can be given to respondent no.1 (original petitioner).

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that assuming without admitting that respondent no.1 is so called son of the deceased employee, then also as per declaration of Kumari Bai on affidavit dated 16th March, 2005 respondent no.1 (original petitioner) was of 10 years of age during the year 2005. These facts have been stated in paragraph 28 of the counter affidavit filed by the appellant in W.P.(C) No. 905 of 2014. In view of the aforesaid affidavit filed by Kumari Bai, who is widow of the deceased employee, even if respondent no.1 (original petitioner) is presumed to be son of the deceased employee, then also his age was approximately 9 years or less than 10