Jharkhand High Court
Bhadwa Bedia vs Central Coalfields Ltd & Ors on 19 June, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No. 4779 of 2004
Bhadwa Bedia ... Petitioner
Versus
Central Coalfields Limited and Ors. ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner :Mr. Vaibhav Kr. Modi, Advocate
For the Respondents :Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate.
13/19.6.2013Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30th January, 2004/ 4th February, 2004, issued under the signature of the Director Personnel, Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi whereby his case for compassionate appointment has been rejected.
3. According to the petitioner, his father had died on 3rd September, 1998. He made an application on a plain paper on 15th October, 1998 for payment of deathcumretiral dues and also for seeking employment on compassionate ground. He further made an application on 21st July, 2000 in the prescribed format, the said application was also rejected by order dated 1st February, 2003, which was challenged in W.P (S) No. 2242 of 2003 before this Court by the writpetitioner. This Court after taking into account the judgment rendered in the case of Roopna Manjhi Vs. CCL & Others, reported in 2003(1) J.C.R. 324 (Jharkhand), observed that the time limit for filing application for compassionate appointment within a period of six months is irrational and the period should be extended for 1½ years. The impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been passed on the ground of its being time barred as the application was filed beyond the period of six months. After passing of the judgment in Roopna Majhi Case (Supra), the matter was remanded to the competent authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment within a fixed time. It was, however, observed that this Court has not determined the question about the eligibility of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
2.Thereafter the impugned order has been passed.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the claim for compassionate appointment has been refused on the ground that on the date, on which application was made i.e. on 21st July, 2000, it was delayed by more than 1½ years from the date of death of his father. It is also submitted that the respondents have overlooked the ratio rendered in the case of Roopna Majhi Case (Supra) and refused to give the benefit to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the application made on behalf of the petitioner has been first made on 15th October, 1998 on a plain paper, which has not been disputed in the counter affidavit. Therefore, the application should not have been rejected as time barred.
5. Learned counsel for the respondentCCL has submitted that after passing of the judgment in Roopna Majhi Case (Supra), respondentCCL has relaxed the time period for filing of an application for compassionate appointment by a period of 1½ years from the date of death and the same was made effective from 27th November, 2002. In such circumstances, when an application for compassionate appointment has been made on a proper format on 21st July, 2000, it is delayed by more than one year, 10½ months from the date of death and was therefore time barred. Accordingly, claim of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the competent authority by passing the impugned order.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the materials available on record including the impugned order. The undisputed facts are that the father of the petitioner had died on 3rd September, 1998. Petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment on plain paper on 15th October, 1998 within a period of six months and again made application on proper format on 21st July, 2000, which was after one year, and 10 ½ months from the date of death of his father. The time period for filing application for compassionate appointment was extended from six month to one year, which was made effective from February, 2000 by a Circular in the year 2002. Subsequent increase in the time period by 1½ years was made effective from 3. 27th November, 2002 in deference to the directives passed in Roopna Majhi Case (Supra). In the instant facts of the case, the circular, which were in vogue at the time of making an application even by the extended time of one year, was made effective from February, 2000. The application of the petitioner was time barred by one year and 10 ½ months from the date of death of his father. In the matter of compassionate appointment as contemplated under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the matter is to be considered only on the basis of schemes and norms of the employer organization.
7. The aforesaid issue has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Lucknow & Ors. Vs. Prabhat Singh reported in JT 2013(1) SC 350 has once again reiterated the legal position. The relevant extract of the aforesaid case is quoted hereunder:
"14. We are constrained to record that even compassionate appointments are regulated by norms. Where such norms have been laid down, the same have to be strictly followed. Where claims for appointment on compassionate ground, exceed, the available vacancies (which can be filled up by way of compassionate appointment), a selection process has to be adopted by the competent authority. The said process necessarily has to be fair, and based on a comparative compassion gradient of eligible candidates, or on some such like criterion having a nexus to the object sought to be achieved. In other words, where there are two candidates but only one vacancy is available, there should be a clear, transparent and objective criterion to determine which of the two should be chosen. In the absence of a prescribed criteria, a fair selection process has to be followed, so that, the exercise carried out in choosing one of the two candidates against a solitary available vacancy, can be shown to be based on reason, fairplay and non arbitrariness.
15. The very object of making provision for appointment on compassionate ground is to provide succor to a family dependent on a government employee, who has unfortunately died in harness. On such death, the family suddenly finds itself in dire straits, on account of the absence of its sole bread winner. Delay in seeking such a claim, is an ante thesis, for the purpose for which compassionate appointment was conceived. Delay in raising such a claim, is contradictory to the object sought to be achieved. The instant controversy reveals that even though Vijay Bahadur Singh, the father of the applicant (Prabhat Singh) seeking appointment on compassionate ground had died on 2. 3. 1996, Prabhat Singh sought 4. judicial redress, for the first time, by approaching the CAT Allahabad Bench in 2005. By such time, there was no surviving right for appointment on compassionate ground under the OM dated 5.5.2003. As already noticed above, appointment on compassionate ground under the OM dated 5.5.2003 is permissible within three years of the death of the bread winner in harness. By now, sixteen years have passed by, and as such, there can be no surviving claim for compassionate appointment.
16. Courts and Tribunals should not fall prey to any sympathy syndrome, so as to issue directions for compassionate appointments, without reference to the prescribed norms. Courts are not supposed to carry Santa Claus's big bag on Christmas eve, to disburse the gift of compassionate appointment, to all those who seek a court's intervention. Courts and Tribunals must understand, that every such act of sympathy, compassion and discretion, wherein directions are issued for appointment on compassionate ground, could deprive a really needy family requiring financial support, and thereby, push into penury a truly indigent, destitute and impoverish family. Discretion is therefore ruled out. So are misplaced sympathy and compassion."
8. In such circumstances, where the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the dependents of the deceased, who died in harness, in terms of circular and the guidelines framed by the organisation, the respondent could not be faulted in rejecting the petitioner's application, which is time barred and filed after more than one year and 10½ months from the date of death of his father.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, no interference is required in the impugned order, which is well reasoned one and passed after proper application of mind.
Therefore, the writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. ) Amitesh/