Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
Central Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman And Managing Director & Ors – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Parden Oraon – Respondent
Civil Appeal No.897 of 2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10514 of 2020)
Decided on : 09-04-2021
(A) Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over sudden crisis which arises due to the death of sole breadwinner – Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood – Authority concerned has to examine financial condition of family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for provision of employment, family will not be able to meet crisis that job is offered to eligible member of family – Compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. (Para 8)
(B) Labour and Industrial law – Compassionate Appointment – There is no bar in National Coal Wage Agreement for appointment of son of an employee who has suffered civil death – Merely because respondent is working, her son cannot be denied compassionate appointment as per relevant clauses of National Coal Wage Agreement – However, Respondent’s husband is missing since 2002 – Two sons of Respondent who are dependants of her husband as per records, are also shown as dependants of Respondent – It cannot be said that there was any financial crisis created immediately after Respondent’s husband went missing in view of employment of Respondent – Though reasons given by employer to deny relief sought by Respondent are not sustainable, Respondent’s son cannot be given compassionate appointment at this point of time – Application for compassionate appointment of son was filed by Respondent in year 2013 which is more than 10 years after Respondent’s husband had gone missing – As object of compassionate appointment is for providing immediate succour to family of a deceased employee, Respondent’s son is not entitled for compassionate appointment after passage of a long period of time since his father has gone missing – Judgment of High Court set aside. (Paras 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Respondent requested the appellants to appoint her son in the place of his father who was missing since 2002 which was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Jharkhand. The writ petition was allowed and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by Division Bench of the High Court. Hence this appeal.
Findings of Court:
Object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. The respondent requested the appellants to appoint her son in the place of his father who was missing since 2002 which was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Jharkhand. The writ petition was allowed and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence this appeal.
2. The husband of the respondent was an Operator, Helper Category (Category II) at Gidi Washery. The Respondent informed the officer in-charge of Bhurkunda Thana, Hazaribagh that her husband was missing since 03.10.2002. A copy of the said information was communicated to the Regional Officer of the Gidi Washery. A charge-sheet was issued by Appellant No. 1 to the Respondent's husband for desertion of duty since 01.10.2002 and an inquiry was conducted in which the Respondent participated on behalf of her husband. On the basis of Inquiry Officer's report, the Appellant No. 1 terminated the services of the Respondent's husband with effect from 21.09.2004.
3. The Respondent filed a suit in the Court of the Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh seeking a declaration of civil death of her missing husband. The said suit was decreed with effect from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 23.12.2009 by a judgment dated 13.07.2012. The Respondent made a representation on 17.01.2013 seeking compassionate appointment for her son which was rejected on 03.05.2013. The request for compassionate appointment was rejected by Appellant No. 1 on the ground that the Respondent's husband was already dismissed from service and therefore, the request for compassionate appointment could not be entertained.
4. Challenging the rejection of the request for compassionate appointment of her son, the Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court which was allowed by a judgment dated 03.08.2015. The High Court held that the proceedings leading to the termination of the Respondent's husband from service cannot be sustained in the eye of law. On the said basis, the order of termination of Respondent's husband from service was quashed. The rejection of the claim of compassionate appointment of her son was also quashed and the first appellant was directed to consider the claim of compassionate appointment of the Respondent's son in accordance with law. By an order dated 03.08.2016 the first Appellant decided that there was no merit in the request for appointment of Respondent's son. It was observed in the order of rejection dated 03.08.2016 that the Respondent was in employment and both her sons were shown as her dependents. It was further noted that the Respondent's husband was missing since 03.10.2002 and the Respondent's son was not entitled to seek compassionate appointment which is normally provided as a succour to the family of a deceased employee in harness. Another reason given for rejecting the request for compassionate appointment was that a decision was taken in the meeting of Directors (Personnel) on 19.10.2013 that compassionate appointment cannot be provided to the dependents of missing employees (Deemed death).
5. The High Court through its judgment dated 16.08.2018 set aside the order dated 03.08.2016 by holding that the note of discussions of the Directors meet held at Jaipur cannot be considered as policy decision and it cannot be the basis for rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment. The High Court was of the view that the parties are bound by the National Coal Wage Agreement. In respect of the Respondent's employment being the reason for rejection of request for compassionate appointment, the High Court observed that there is no policy decision of the appellant company not to offer compassionate appointment in cases of double employment. As the order of termination of services of Respondent's husband was quashed by the High Court, Respondent's son was held to be entitled for appointment. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal fi
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
