Back
2019 Supreme(Jhk) 2086
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. N. PATHAK, J.
Vijay Digar, son of Late Manu Digar - Petitioner
Versus
Central Coalfields Limited and Ors - Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 1411 of 2016
Decided On : 22-07-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, Advocate
Headnote:
Deceased Employee - Appointment on Compassionate Grounds - Amount of Gratuity - Case of petitioner that his father was appointed in Central Coalfields Limited and was working - However, he died in harness - After death of deceased-employee, petitioner’s mother duly informed same to office of respondents and further applied for her appointment on compassionate grounds - Subsequently, mother of petitioner also waiting for her appointment on compassionate grounds - Even amount towards gratuity and amount towards life cover scheme of deceased employee were not paid to her – Held, As far as petitioner’s claim for appointment on compassionate grounds is concerned, there is no dispute that his mother’s application was ever rejected by respondents or monetary compensation as provided under Clause 9.5.0 (ii) & (iv) of NCWA was ever paid to her during her life time - Though claim of petitioner’s mother for her appointment on compassionate ground was accepted but no orders were passed - In instant case, though it was orally argued that petitioner’s application for enrollment in live-roster was not accepted as no application was made and as such, due to delay it was rightly rejected, but impugned order of rejection - So far as this case is concerned, representation/ application of compassionate appointment, having been made after expiry of prescribed limitation period of 1 and ½ years from date of death of employee, therefore, claim of the petitioner has not been considered - As a cumulative effect of aforesaid guidelines, judicial pronouncements, settled proposition of law, as well as facts and circumstances of case, impugned order issued vide letter issued by Manager (Personnel), Jarangdih Colliery, communicated to petitioner by Nodal Officer, is held to be not tenable in eyes of law and same is hereby quashed and set aside - As a sequel of aforesaid order, respondents are directed to consider case of petitioner for his appointment on compassionate grounds and pay him all legally admissible retiral dues, in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order - Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of letter no. PO/ JRD/ Samadhan Cell/ 2016/ 3225, dated 21.01.2016, issued by the Manager (Personnel), Jarangdih Colliery, communicated to the petitioner on 29.01.2016 by the Nodal Officer, Samadhan Cell, Kathara Area, CCL, whereby his claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that his name does not find mention in any service excerpts of his father, who was an employee of the CCL. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to release death-cum-retiral benefit of his deceased father along with statutory interest as also the amount of life cover scheme at the present rate.
3. It is case of the petitioner that his father was appointed in the Central Coalfields Limited on 16.11.1988 and was working as a Piece Rated Mazdoor (P/R) at Jarangdih Colliery. However, he died in harness on 02.09.2008. The service book of the deceased employee was being maintained by the respondents in which name of mother, elder sister and grandmother of the petitioner has been mentioned but petitioner’s name has not been mentioned. After death of the deceased-employee, the petitioner’s mother duly informed the same to the office of the respondents and further applied for her appointment on compassionate grounds on 11.12.2008. However, the respondents sat tight over the matter for almost four years and no order was passed on pending application of petitioner’s mother during her life time. Subsequently, mother of the petitioner also died on 04.06.2012 waiting for her appointment on compassionate grounds. Even the amount towards gratuity and amount towards life cover scheme of the deceased employee were not paid to her. After death of his mother, petitioner filed an application dated 03.08.2013 followed by another application dated 15.06.2015 for his appointment on compassionate grounds and further an application for payment of amount payable to him towards gratuity as well as live cover scheme on account of death of his father.
4. It is further alleged that after filing of fresh representation dated 07.10.2015 before the Samadhan Cell of respondents – Central Coalfields Limited, a letter no. PO/ JRD/ Samadhan Cell/ 2016/ 3225, dated 21.01.2016, has been issued by the Manager (Personnel), Jarangdih Colliery and duly communicated to the petitioner on 29.01.2016 by the Nodal Officer, Samadhan Cell, Kathara Area, CCL, whereby it has been informed that his claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that his name does not find mention in any service excerpts of his father, who was an employee of the CCL. As claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate grounds and for release of certain dues has been rejected by the respondent – Central Coalfields Limited, petitioner has been constrained to knock door of this Court.
5. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that petitioner is entitled for his appointment on compassionate grounds as per NCWA and also for payment of gratuity and other benefits under the Statutes. It has further been argued by learned counsel that the grounds of rejection of case of the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law as at the time of his appointment, petitioner was not even born and as such, there was no question of entry of his name in the service book. There is possibility that his father might have intimated the concerned office for entry of name of the petitioner but the same could not have been entered. After death of petitioner’s father, his mother duly applied for her appointment on compassionate grounds and for release of benefits but the same was kept pending for years and in the meantime, she died. Thereafter, petitioner applied for hi
