Jharkhand High Court
Roushan Ara vs The Chirman Cum Managing Director ... on 27 January, 2017
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S. N. Pathak
1 W.P. (S) No. 6268 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 6268 of 2015
===============================================================
Roushan Ara, wife of late Akhtar, resident of At. Mahua Tola, P.O. Bhagani Nagar
(Bhurkunda), P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh.
... ... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Ltd., Darbhanga House at
Ranchi, P.O., P.S. & District Ranchi.
2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Ltd., Darbhanga House at Ranchi, P.O.,
P.S. & District Ranchi.
3. The General Manager (P-R), Central Coalfields Ltd. at Khas Mahal Project, Karo
Special Project Phase-II, Karo, P.O. & P.S. Bermo, Dist. Bokaro.
4. The Senior Manager (Personnel), Central Coalfields Ltd. at Khas Mahal Project, Karo
Special Project Phase-II, Karo, P.O. & P.S. Bermo, Dist. Bokaro.
5. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Ltd. at Khas Mahal Project, Karo Special
Project Phase-II, Karo, P.O. & P.S. Bermo, Dist. Bokaro.
6. The Staff Officer (P), Central Coalfields Ltd. at Khas Mahal Project, Karo Special
Project Phase-II, Karo, P.O. & P.S. Bermo, Dist. Bokaro.
... ... Respondents.
===============================================================
For Petitioner : Dr. H. Waris, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, Advocate
===============================================================
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
08/ 27.01.2017Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the letter dated 03.10.2013, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment of his elder son has been rejected by the respondents-authorities merely on the ground of being time barred.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The husband of the petitioner namely, Akhtar was appointed as Pump Khalasi Grade-II at Karo Special Project Phase-II, Bermo of Central Coalfields Ltd. He died in harness on 02.01.2012 at Gandhi Nagar Hospital, Ranchi and in this regard, death certificates have also been issued by the Central Coalfields Ltd. and 2 W.P. (S) No. 6268 of 2015 the concerned Department of the State Government. Thereafter, on 13.09.2013 the petitioner made application for compassionate appointment of her elder son in place of her deceased husband. It also appears that in Form PS-03 and PS-04, the name of the petitioner is appearing as the wife of the deceased employee and a certificate of family description has also been issued from the Office of the Block Development Officer, Patratu, where it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner is the wife and the Firoz Alam is the elder son of the deceased employee. The petitioner has also sworn an affidavit on 21.02.2013 where she has mentioned that she has no objection if her son will be appointed on compassionate ground in place of her deceased husband as per the relevant provisions contained in Clause 9.3.0 and 9.3.2 of the NCWA-IX, but the same has not been considered by the respondents- authorities. It also appears that after the death of her husband she became mentally sick and in such condition, she could not file any application for compassionate appointment of her son however, within the appropriate time i.e. 15.03.2013, she filed an application before the respondents-authorities for compassionate appointment of her son but the said application has not been considered by the respondents-authorities intentionally. Thereafter, the petitioner has again filed representation before the Project Officer, Karo Special Project-II for compassionate appointment of her elder son and in reply to her said representation, the respondents vide letter dated 05.09.2012 have advised the petitioner to submit all the necessary documents either for compassionate appointment or for monetary benefits. On such advise, the petitioner had submitted all the required documents before the respondents-authorities but all are in vain. Thereafter, the petitioner once again submitted her representation before the Project Officer, Karo Special Project Phase- II for compassionate appointment of her elder son but again it became fruitless. It is stated that on 03.10.2013, the Senior (Personnel) has informed the petitioner that her claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected merely on the ground that she has made application after one year eight months and eleven days and as such, the same is barred by limitation. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner served a legal notice on 14.10.2015 to the Senior Manager (Personnel), Khas Mahal, Karo Special Project Phase-II, Bokari with respect to the compassionate appointment of her son but again it has neither been considered nor replied by the respondents-authorities. Hence, this writ application has been filed by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. H. Waris, submits that the petitioner is a poor and illiterate lady and after death of her husband, she has no source of 3 W.P. (S) No. 6268 of 2015 income and her entire family has been thrown on the street due to no any source of income and as such, her prayer must be considered by the respondents-CCL in view of the several judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, stating therein that the delay must be ignored in allowing the compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employee of Central Coalfields Ltd. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner suffers irreparable loss and injury if the grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed.
To strengthen his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in case of Mangi Devi Vrs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., 2006 (1) JLJR 446, paragraphs 4 and 5 of which is reproduced herein below:-
"4. Curiously enough, in spite of these facts, impugned order dated 15.06.2001 was issued by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the claim is belated. In my opinion, decision of the competent authority of the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground of its being belated claim is illegal and wholly unjustified.
5. The petitioner who is the widow of the deceased employee is entitled to get employment and/or compessation under National Coal Wage Agreement which has got the statutory force and the same cannot be equated with any circular or scheme issued by the Government compassionate appointment. In my opinion therefore, merely because of some delay in filing up required form the claim of the petitioner for appointment under National Coal Wage Agreement could not be rejected."
5. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the petitioner and submits that the instant writ application is not maintainable in the eyes of law and liable to the rejected. He further submits that the name of said Firoz Alam did not figure in any of the service records of the deceased employee available with the respondents-CCL and the deceased employee, during his life time has never disclosed the name of Firoz Alam as his son, with the respondent-CCL at unit level. Further contention of learned counsel is that CCL had prescribed a limitation period of six months for compassionate appointment from the date death of the deceased employee by a Circular dated 4 W.P. (S) No. 6268 of 2015 12.12.1995, which later on, was extended to one year w.e.f. February, 2000, by a circular dated 01.01.2002. The said limitation period was further extended upto one-and-half years w.e.f. 27.11.2002 by a letter dated 19.06.2003 in pursuant to the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 27.11.2002 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4964 of 2002 (Rupna Manjhi Vrs. CCL & Ors.). However, the aforesaid limitation period was reverted back to one year by a Circular dated 19.03.2005 in view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court dated 13.08.2004 passed in W.P.(S). No. 6589 of 2002 (Sunil Kumar Bhengara Vrs. Union of India & Ors.). Now, the limitation period has once again extended upto one-and-half years by a letter dated 03.11.2009 in view of the decision arrived at the Joint Consultative Committee Level at Headquarter, Ranchi on 22.07.2009. It is stated that the Joint Consultative Committee Level is a forum representatives represented by both the Employer and the Employees. Learned counsel submits that in any event of the matter, the time limit for making application for compassionate appointment has been extended upto one-and-half year and since the petitioner has not applied within the time limit, her claim for compassionate appointment cannot be considered at this belated stage since it is barred by limitation.
6. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner has been illegally and arbitrarily rejected by the respondents-authorities and requires reconsideration. The ground for rejection of the petitioner's claim for appointment of her son on compassionate ground is not tenable in the eyes of law. In my opinion, decision of the competent authority of the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground of its being belated claim is illegal and wholly unjustified.
Petitioner who the widow of the deceased-employee has applied for appointment of her elder son under National Coal Wage Agreement which has got statutory force and the same cannot be equated with any circular or scheme issued by the government for compassionate appointment. In my opinion, therefore, merely because of some delay in filing the required application, the claim of the petitioner for appointment under the National Coal Wage Agreement could not be rejected. It is apparent from the records that soon after the death of the petitioner's husband, she filed an affidavit on 21.02.2013, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, mentioning all the details and requesting for appointment of her elder son on compassionate ground. It is also clear from Annexure-8 to the writ petition that an application was also made on 05.03.2013 itself for appointment on compassionate 5 W.P. (S) No. 6268 of 2015 ground, which goes to show that an illiterate lady made an application and approached the authority in her own way, which was outrightly rejected by the respondents and the grounds shown is not at all accepted by this Hon'ble Court in view of the fact that delay attributed to the petitioner is two months eleven days for which there is no cogent and reasonable ground shown by the respondents neither any reasons have been assigned for disbelieving the application made within the stipulated period of one-and-half years and as such, the ground of rejection is not tenable and fit to be quashed and set aside.
Law with regard to employment on compassionate ground for dependents of deceased employee is well settled. In the case of Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors., reported in (1999) 4 SCC 468, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"9. We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant."
This Hon'ble Court dealing with the same issue of belated claim, passed an order in the case of Mangi Devi Vs. BCCL & Ors., reported in 2006 (1) JLJR 446, rejecting the claim of the respondents and directing them to reconsider the matter.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, observations, rules, guidelines and the judicial pronouncements, the impugned letter dated 03.10.2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and take appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say that in the meantime, respondents shall release death-cum-retiral dues, if not paid.
8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) kunal/-