Jharkhand High Court
Jagdish vs M/S Central Coalfields Limited; A ... on 14 May, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 JHA 323
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3339 of 2016
-----
Jagdish, son of Late Raja Ram, resident of Mahabir Mandir, Jawahar Nagar, PO & PS-Bhurkunda, Dist.-Ramgarh ........ Petitioner
-Versus-
1. M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED; a Subsidiary of Coal India Limited having its registered Office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, PO-Ranchi, P.S-Kotwali, District-Ranchi through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED; at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O- Ranchi, P.S-Kotwali, District-Ranchi through its Chairman- cum-Managing Director
3. Director (P) M/s Central Coalfields Limited; Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O-Ranchi, P.S-Kotwali, District-Ranchi
4. Project Officer, Bhurkunda Colliery, P.O & P.S-Bhurkunda, District-Ramgarh .......... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Adv.
For the Resp.-CCL : M/s Pooja Kumari, Adv.
-----
14/14.05.2018 Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated
18.05.2015 by which he has been declined compassionate appointment on the ground that he has crossed 35 years of age on the date of application.
2. Briefly stated, father of the petitioner who was employed as 'Tyndale' at Bhurkunda colliery died in harness on 21.11.2012. In the service excerpts and other documents maintained by the employer-M/s CCL petitioner has been shown as son of the employee-Raja Ram. Mother of the petitioner has submitted a representation on 23.03.2013 for his appointment on compassionate ground whereupon the petitioner was directed to appear before the Committee on 14.06.2013 along with other family members and produce original death-certificate, family details certificate, educational certificate, identity card etc. The respondents have pleaded that in the service related documents of the deceased employee there are discrepancies in the age of the petitioner and therefore in terms of Implementation Instructions No.76 the Age Assessment Committee which consist of several doctors has assessed age of the petitioner.
2Taking mid-point of the age of the petitioner between 35 to 40 years as assessed by the Medical Board, that is, 37½ years, compassionate appointment to the petitioner has been declined on the ground that he has crossed the maximum prescribed age of 35 years on the date of the application seeking compassionate appointment.
3. Contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are that it is the date of death and not the date of application which shall be reckoned for age eligibility of a dependant and if age of the dependant of an ex-employee was within the prescribed age limit on the date of death determination of the age of a claimant by a Medical Board would not be a determinative factor.
4. As against the above, Ms. Pooja Kumari the learned counsel for the respondent-CCL takes a preliminary objection on the ground that the petitioner who was made aware of his age as assessed by the Age Assessment Committee is precluded from contending that his claim for compassionate appointment cannot be declined by taking the mid-point on the range of age decided by the Medical Board. Contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that instructions contained under letter dated 07.07.1992 is binding on the employee and the petitioner who admittedly had crossed the age of 35 years as on the date of application has rightly been declined compassionate appointment. The learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that keeping in view the object behind compassionate appointment more than 5 years after the death of his father the petitioner cannot be offered appointment on compassionate ground.
5. Provision for compassionate appointment to a dependant of the deceased employee under National Coal Wage Agreement which is a tripartite settlement and has attained statutory force [refer "Mohan Mahto Vrs. Central Coal Field Ltd. & Others" reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549] is a beneficial provision, benefits under which normally should not be declined on technicalities. The respondent-Coal Company has issued instructions under which an application for compassionate appointment should be filed 3 within 18 months from the date of death of the employee. The applications filed beyond the period of 18 months are rejected by the employer-M/s CCL on the ground of delay. This period of 18 months in the context of age eligibility of a claimant, thus, assumes significance. A candidate who may not have attained 35 years of age on the date of death of the employee may cross the maximum age limit for employment on the date of application which may be the last date of the 18 months' period. Fixing the period of 18 months for submitting an application for compassionate appointment and at the same time taking the date of application as the reckoning date for calculating age of a claimant brings disability to a claimant who was eligible for appointment on the date of death of the ex-employee. Though a claimant has 18 months time to submit an application for compassionate appointment, he would be denied compassionate appointment if he has crossed 35 years as on the date of application. It is well-known that immediately on death of an employee his dependants are not expected to submit application for compassionate appointment; it takes time for the grieving family to come out of the grief, shock and disbelief on the death of their bread earner. Now in a situation where each day counts fixing date of application as the reckoning date, makes such a criteria arbitrary. Even otherwise, such an approach would not be in consonance with fairness in action which is expected from a public sector organisation. In "Madan Singh Shekhawat Vs. Union of India & Ors.", reported in (1999) 6 SCC 459, the Supreme Court has held that, "it is the duty of the Court to interpret the provision especially the beneficial provision, liberally so far as to give it a wider meaning, rather than restrictive meaning which would negate the very object of the Rule".
6. The records produced in the present proceeding would disclose that in the service excerpts of the ex-employee age of the petitioner is recorded as 9 years as on 01.04.1987. He had attained the age of 34 years 7 months and 20 days on the date of death of his father, that is, 21.11.2012. In the L.T.C option form the petitioner was 4 shown 6 years old as on 01.12.1993, his age as on the date of death of his father was 34 years 11 months and 12 days. In PS-III Form his age is recorded as 20 years as on 29.05.1998, according to which he was of 34 years 5 months and 22 days as on 21.11.2012, that is, on the date of death of the ex-employee. In Form-A also his age has been shown as 6 years on 26.04.1993. Age of the petitioner recorded in the aforesaid records maintained by the employer-M/s CCL corroborates each other and there is no inconsistency or discrepancy in the age of the petitioner recorded in these documents. The alleged discrepancy sought to be projected by the employer-M/s CCL is on account of a wrong procedure followed by the employer itself. Neither in the service excerpts nor in other records exact age of the dependants of an employee are recorded, rather it is recorded as 6 years, 7 years and in the like manner. Since age of the petitioner is recorded in this fashion, it is found that there is no variation in the age of the petitioner recorded in different documents.
7. In the above facts, in the first place there was no requirement for sending the petitioner for his age assessment by a Medical Board. Implementation Instructions No.76 is primarily intended at detecting fraud and misrepresentation by an employee who may have disclosed a wrong date of birth at the time of his employment or subsequently. Another reason why age assessment of the petitioner by the Medical Board cannot be a ground for rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment is wide variation in assessment of the petitioner's age; variation of 5 years is too large a variation. The contention that the petitioner who is literate and who had voluntarily opted for his age assessment by the Medical Board cannot challenge assessment of his age by the Medical Board is bereft of substance. It is not assessment of age by the Medical Board which has been attacked by the petitioner, it is arbitrary action of the respondents in ignoring age of the petitioner as recorded in various service related documents of ex-employee and rejecting claim of the 5 petitioner on the basis of his age assessed by the Medical Board which is under challenge.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find serious flaw in the procedure adopted by the respondents under which date of application for compassionate appointment has been fixed as the cut-off date. Consequently, the impugned order is quashed. The respondent-General Manager (P&IR), CCL, Ranchi is directed to assess suitability of the petitioner for appointment on a suitable post and if he is found otherwise suitable he shall be offered appointment within 8 weeks.
9. Writ petition stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) sudhir AFR