Back
2019 Supreme(Jhk) 266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, J.
Surthi Devi – Appellant
Versus
Central Coal Field Limited (A subsidiary of Coal India Ltd.) – Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 4758 of 2017
Decided on : 04-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mrs. M.M. Pal, Sr. Advocate Ms. Mohua Palit, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Headnote:
Claim of compensation - Damages and compensation for harassment – Jurisdiction - So appropriate decision be taken so that matter can be processed after receiving necessary permission - Both son and mother ran from pillar to post but nothing moved from end of Central Coalfields Limited - Petitioner lastly made an application under Right to Information Act about the status of claim - A reply was furnished which suggests that case of compassionate appointment of the petitioner was recommended by the Screening Committee and the recommendation was also approved and the papers were sent to the headquarters and the matter is still pending in the headquarters of the CCL and the respective Colliery/Unit is still waiting for the decision from the headquarters. The petitioner, thereafter, having no other alternative, approached this Court by filing this writ application praying for a direction to pass a final order in respect of the claim of employment of her son on compassionate ground and to pay entire death-cum-retrial benefits, which is due – Held, In the instant case, as held earlier, I find that inaction on part of the respondents in not disposing of the application for grant of compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner is unpardonable - Respondents sat over the matter and till date has not disposed of the application, rather contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that 20 years have gone by, thus, there is no necessity to grant compassionate appointment. It is unfair on the part of the respondents to take benefit of their own wrong, which should not also be allowed. Further, if they are allowed to go scot free, these inactions will continue and will increase by few folds to deprive family of poor workman who will be left at a helpless state who cannot even confront the might of the public sector authorities – Thus this is a fit case to impose exemplary damages - In view of aforesaid position, I direct the respondents-the Central Coalfields Limited to pay damages of petitioner – Now question is whether damages are to be paid from the coffers of the Public Sector Undertaking or should be saddled upon the person(s) for whom, this delay has been caused - Central Coalfields Limited is a public sector undertaking money belongs to public at large and not to any individual - This public money cannot be allowed to be squandered with – Thus court direct Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited to initiate an inquiry by appointing a committee comprising of high level officers and fix responsibility upon the erring officers for whose application was kept pending. After proper identification and after giving opportunity to them, appropriate action be taken against them for recovery of the said amount proportionately - Amount of damages so imposed, should be deposited within three weeks from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order before the Registrar General of this Court, who will disburse the said amount to the legal heirs of the deceased equally after proper verification and identification, preferably within a period of six weeks from date of deposit of the said amount – Application disposed of
In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pass a final order in respect of employment of her son on compassionate ground under Para 9.3.0 within a specified period and to pay all death-cum-retiral dues and pension with 18% interest within a specified period. Petitioner also prays for grant of exemplary costs and damages for the insensitive attitude of the respondents and also frustrating the genuine claim for grant of compassionate appointment.
2. This case is an example of arbitrary and oppressive behavior of the respondents upon the petitioner. It also reflects the insensitive attitude of the respondent-Central Coalfields Limited.
3. The husband of the petitioner, late Baku Manjhi was an employee of Central Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited. He was a driller – Category IV Mazdoor. Unfortunately, he died in harness on 03.03.1998. He left behind his widow, who is the petitioner and his son. As there is a scheme for grant of compassionate appointment to the heirs of the deceased, on 15.05.1998, the petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment. After proper verification from the unit level, her case was recommended by the unit level of the respondent and the same was sent to the headquarters at Ranchi vide letter dated 18.02.1999. The petitioner was assured on several occasions that her application was being considered, but, she was kept waiting as no order was passed. Time flew bye and the petitioner was aging. Thus, on 14.05.2010, the petitioner represented before the authorities and requested to consider the case of her son for compassionate appointment, in her place. After receiving the said representation, the Senior Personnel Officer of the Central Coalfields Limited wrote to the Staff Officer on 30.05.2010/03.06.2010 that the claim of compassionate appointment of the mother, i.e., the petitioner, is still in process and has not been finalized and in that view the mother has requested to appoint her son, so appropriate decision be taken so that the matter can be processed after receiving necessary permission. Both, the son and mother ran from pillar to post, but, nothing moved from the end of the Central Coalfields Limited. The petitioner lastly made an application under the Right to Information Act about the status of the claim. A reply was furnished, which suggests that the case of compassionate appointment of the petitioner was recommended by the Screening Committee and the recommendation was also approved on 06.05.1999 and the papers were sent to the headquarters and the matter is still pending in the headquarters of the CCL and the respective Colliery/Unit is still waiting for the decision from the headquarters. The petitioner, thereafter, having no other alternative, approached this Court by filing this writ application praying for a direction to pass a final order in respect of the claim of employment of her son on compassionate ground and to pay entire death-cum-retiral benefits, which is due.
4. The respondent-CCL filed a first counter affidavit, which was sworn on 18.12.2017. The objection, which the CCL takes is that there are disputed question of facts and even otherwise the petitioner should raise an industrial dispute. In the counter affidavit, it is not denied that the date of death of the employee is 03.03.1998 and he died in harness. It is also admitted that immediately after the death, the petitioner filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment in the prescribed format on 25.08.1998. It is also admitted that the matter was kept pending till 2010 when because of physical disability, the petitioner requested the respondents to consider the case of her son for grant of compassionate appointment. They stated that the son cannot be granted employment as he has also attained / crossed the age of 35 years, which is the maximum age for giving employment. They stated that there is a dispute in respect of age of
