Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ravi Ranjan, Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Employers in relation to the management of Katras Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Miss. Shanti Kumari, daughter of Late Darwa Bhuiya - Respondent
L.P.A No. 100 of 2020 with I.A. No.1984 of 2020
Decided On : 18-01-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Limitation Act - Section 5 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 18 - Appointment on compassionate ground - Claim of is illegal and arbitrary in eyes of law - Petitioner who was permanent employee and was posted as Pump Operator at Colliery respondents hereinafter referred to as died in harness - At time of death writ petitioner and her sister were minor and as such mother of petitioner wife deceased employee had submitted her representation before respondent for appointment of her daughter on compassionate ground - case of writ petitioner was considered but rejected on ground that age writ petitioner at time of death of her father was years months days but there is no provision to keep female dependant on live roster - It is further case of writ petitioner that on writ petitioner had submitted representation requesting therein that ground of rejection of her claim for compassionate appointments illegal and arbitrary in view that she had applied for compassionate appointment and had attained majority as such request was made to consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground - But said claim was rejected vide order – Held, But court are not in agreement with such submissions because even if reason as has been provided agreement which has got statutory fervor has not been mentioned in impugned order same is required to be considered by court of law and considering aforesaid legal position this Court has also gone into that factual aspect in order to consider same on basis of legal position as provided Para to find out as to whether it fit case for consideration under condition stipulated Clause case where consideration ought to have been given Clause rather it is case of Clause aforesaid agreement as discussed above - But at risk of repetition same is reiterated herein that at time of death of deceased employee age of widow deceased employee was years and as she was eligible to be considered for appointment as Para agreement but she has not offered herself for same rather offered candidature of unmarried daughter for same who was less than age years - As such since there was adult dependant in family it was case Para agreement and once it is case of Para agreement there cannot be applicability of condition stipulated agreement - In that view of mattered is not case of gender discrimination hence we are not going to this aspect - Single Judge without appreciating this aspect matter and without traveling to that aspect has considered case of writ petitioner basis of applicability of Clause aforesaid agreement which cannot be said to be proper and justified – Order accordingly
JUDGMENT :
1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.
I.A. No.1984 of 2020
2. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 109 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
3. Heard.
4. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.
5. Accordingly, I.A. No.1984 of 2020 is allowed and delay of 109 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.
L.P.A. No.100 of 2020
6. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 20.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3993 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been allowed by quashing the order contained in letter No.153/2018 dated 13/30.06.2018 issued by the respondent no.3/appellant no.3 herein, by which the claim of the writ petitioner to provide her compassionate appointment has been rejected with a further direction upon the respondents-BCCL to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.
7. The brief fact of the case, which requires to be enumerated, reads as hereunder:
The father of the writ petitioner, who was permanent employee and was posted as Pump Operator at Ramkanali Colliery under the respondents-BCCL (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BCCL’) died in harness on 11.01.2015. At the time of death, the writ petitioner and her sister were minor and as such, mother of the petitioner, wife of the deceased employee had submitted her representation before the respondent for appointment of her daughter on compassionate ground.
The case of the writ petitioner was considered but rejected on the ground that the age of the writ petitioner at the time of death of her father was 15 years 8 months and 24 days but there is no provision to keep female dependant on live roster. It is further case of the writ petitioner that on 27.12.2017, the writ petitioner had submitted a representation requesting therein that the ground of rejection of her claim for compassionate appointment, is illegal and arbitrary in view of the fact that she had applied for compassionate appointment on 01.06.2015 and had attained majority on 02.05.2017 and as such, a request was made to consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground. But, the said claim was rejected vide order dated 13/30.06.2018.
The aforesaid order was assailed before this Court by invoking jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the ground has been agitated that the compassionate appointment is to be provided to unmarried daughter as per the provision contained in Para-9.4.0 of N.C.W.A and as such, the action of the respondent-BCCL, rejecting the claim of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary in the eyes of law. Further submission has been made that her claim on the ground of gender is against the provision of Constitution of India. It has further been submitted that in terms of N.C.W.A, a male dependant, who is below the age of 18 years can be kept in live roster till he attains majority but there has been apparent discrimination in the case of female dependant as would appear from the case in hand.
Per contra, a counter affidavit was filed by the respondents-BCCL. Learned counsel for the respondents-BCCL opposed the contention of the petitioner by making submission that as per the service excerpts of the deceased employee, the name of the writ petitioner did not find place in the list of dependants and after the death of the deceased employee, the family certificate was submitted by the writ petitioner in w
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
