Chattisgarh High Court
Rajkumari vs The South Eastern Coalfields Limited ... on 25 November, 2024
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1 / 12
2024:CGHC:46100
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 03.10.2024.
Order Passed on 25.11.2024.
WPS No. 684 of 2015
1 - Rajkumari D/o Late Ramsharan aged about 35 years; Caste-Panika, R/o
Domanhil, Police Station-Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawan, District Korea (C.G.).
2 - Premchand S/o Ramsharan aged about 49 years; Caste-Panika
(Handicapped), R/o Village Podi, Navapara Post Podi Tehsil Khadgawan
District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.).
3 - Sheetala Wd/o Late Dhaniram aged about 40 years; D/o Late Ramsharan
Caste-Panika Occupation Housewife R/o Navapara Podi, Chittajor Post Podi,
Tehsil Khadgawan District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.)
... Petitioners
Versus
1 - The South Eastern Coalfields Limited, through its Chief Managing
Director, Head Office, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, (C.G.).
2 - The Director (Personnel), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Office,
Seepat Road, Bilaspur, (C.G.).
3 - The Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Chirmiti
Area, District- Korea, (C.G.).
2 / 12
4 - The Regional Personnel Manager, Chirmiri Area, District-Korea,(C.G.).
5 - The Sub Area Manager N.C.P.H. Colliery, Chirmiri, District-Korea, (C.G.).
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Shailendra Shukla, Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C.A.V. ORDER
1. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenging the cancellation of compassionate appointment of petitioner No.1 under the respondents, through its letter dated 11.02.2015, which has been received under Right to Information Act, as well as through the letter dated 02.08.2011, by which, the respondents have acted arbitrary on the basis of forged complaint lodged by the petitioner's brother, whereas it is clearly evident from the affidavit filed by the petitioner's brother that he is a handicapped person and he never filed any objection in regard to the compassionate appointment.
2. Brief facts of the case as adumbrated by the petitioners are that petitioner"s No.1 father was an ex-employee under the respondent authorities and during his service period, he worked as a Loader and he had died on 07.09.2006, a copy of death 3 / 12 certificate is annexed as Annexure P/3. After the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner No. 1, who is an unmarried woman, to take care of her family well-being has filed an application before the respondents for providing compassionate appointment in place of her father. The other dependents i.e., sister of the petitioner, viz. Sheetla and brother of the petitioner, viz. Premchand raised no objection in regard to the compassionate appointment to the petitioner No. 1, because, her sister Sheetla is a married woman and brother Premchand is a physically handicapped person, and, therefore, unable to perform duty under the respondent authorities, his handicap certificate is issued vide Annexure P/4. Pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner No.1 for compassionate appointment, the respondents acted accordingly and finally respondent No. 3 directed the petitioner No. 1 to appear for medical examination on 16.07.2010 (Annexure P/5) with all necessary documents in regard to the service and accordingly the petitioner No. 1 appeared for medical examination with all concerned relevant documents on 16.07.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 awaited for the reply or any order for her appointment on compassionate ground under the respondent authorities, but neither any appointment order has been issued by the respondents in her favour, nor any rejection order has been communicated to her till date. Being aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioners approached before them continuously, pleaded in both orally and 4 / 12 written manner through her letters under RTI Act, 2005 vide Annexure P/6 dated 05.11.2014, 29.12.2014, 27.01.2015 and 06.02.2015, however, there is no response made from the respondent authorities regarding application filed under RTI Act of the petitioner and nor is any rejection letter issued to her. The respondent has been assigned through the letter dated 11.02.2015 under the RTI Act annexed as Annexure P/1 that the compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected through its order dated 05.07.2010 and further alleged that the petitioner by fraudulent way, got an appointment under the respondent authorities. The respondents have ignored the affidavits (Annexure P/7) sworn by the family members of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner's brother viz., Premchand stated about his physical incapability as well as consent towards compassionate appointment to his sister, as such there is no fraudulent act committed by the petitioner. Hence, this petition filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:-
"(i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly please to call the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner, from the respondent authorities.
(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned orders/letters (Annexure P/1 & P/2).5 / 12
(iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for grant compassionate appointment.
(iv) That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned inaction on the part of respondent authorities in not providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner is bad-in-law, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner Rajkumari immediately applied for appointment on compassionate ground, looking to the financial condition of her family and after death of deceased employee, the entire family members of the petitioners are suffering with great financial crisis, as the sole brother of the petitioner is handicapped and her mother is an old aged widow lady and there is no earning family member in her family. The case of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondent authorities, only on the basis of alleged complaints, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry about genuineness of alleged complaints and till date the brother of the 6 / 12 petitioner No.1 has not made any complaint or objection in granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner No.1. However, it appears that forged and balled complaints have been made in the name of petitioner's brother and it is evident that forged signature of petitioner's brother is put on the said alleged complaint and on the basis of that, the respondent authorities, without hearing to the petitioner, or her brother, rejected the claim of the petitioner No.1 . The petitioners family members have also filed their affidavits in the year 2014, whereby categorically mentioning that they have no objection or complaint in granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner under respondent authorities except to get compassionate appointment and there is no other source of livelihood of family members of deceased employee, therefore rejection of case of the petitioner without affording her any opportunity of hearing, is bad-in-law and liable to be set aside. The petitioner No.1 is running pillar to post for getting compassionate appointment, but till date no positive step has been taken. As such, the impugned orders/letters (Ex. P/1 & Ex. P/2) may be set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the ground of compassionate appointment.
4. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Chandrani Sinha Vs. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Holding Company reported in WPS No. 5576 of 2014 of this Court's order dated 07.09.2016, 7 / 12 in the case of Smt. Sarojni Bhoi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. reported in 2015 CJ (Chh) 183, in the case of Vijaya Kumari & Ors. Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd and Ors. reported in WPS No. 5935 of 2021 of this Court's order dated 26.10.2021, in the case of Smt. Sulekha Maiti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. reported in WPS No. 1217 of 2016 of this Court's order dated 08.02.2022.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the father of the petitioner No.1 late Ramsharan was working at NCPH Colliery on the post of Loader and died on 07.09.2006. After death of the deceased employee, claim for Compassionate Appointment has been submitted by Smt. Baijant Kunwar W/o Late Ramsharan for providing employment to her daughter Rajkumari. During submission of proposal Smt. Baijant Kunwar had declared an oath that Kumari Rajkumari daughter of the deceased employee is presently unmarried and residing with her and fully dependent upon her. Rajkumari D/o deceased employee also declared an oath that she is unmarried and was fully dependent upon her father during his lifetime and Shri Prem Chand S/o deceased employee had also submitted his affidavit declaring his sister Rajkumari as unmarried. On the basis of above declaration/oath submitted by the applicant concerned, relationship certificate issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, 8 / 12 Kadgawan the claim of the petitioner No.1 for granting compassionate appointment had been considered by the respondent authority and accordingly the petitioner had been sent to Regional Hospital Khursia of Chirmiri Area for his initial Medical Examination vide letter dated 16.07.2010 prior to issuance of appointment order. This action had been taken by the respondent in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.3.3 of the Social Security Chapter in which it is mentioned that the employment would be provided to one dependent worker who are permanently disabled and also who died on service. The operative part of this judgment is Annexure R-1. In the meanwhile, Shri Prem Chand S/o Late Ramsharan, the brother of the petitioner had submitted an application dated 02.08.2010 whereby he objected that Rajkumari the petitioner herein has been trying to obtain compassionate appointment in place of her father by declaring her as unmarried daughter. All the documents have been obtained on forged basis, hence, case of Rajkumari cannot be considered. Simultaneously, Shri Dhani Ram S/o Kailash Ram R/o Nava Para District Korea had submitted a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Korea Baikunthpur and the copy of the above complaint is annexed herewith as Annexure R-2. After receiving the above complaint, the respondent had sent the same to the Superintendent of Police, Korba (C.G.) as well as Superintendent of Police, Korea Baikunthpur (C.G.). The matter had been deeply enquired where statement of all the family 9 / 12 members of the deceased employee as well as person concerned had been taken in writing. Statement of Smt. Baijant Kunwar W/o deceased employee and statement of Rajkumari (petitioner herein), W/o Fulsai were also taken up in the record and on perusal of the said statement, it is found that Rajkumari (petitioner No.1 herein) is married daughter of deceased employee and she is trying to obtain compassionate appointment by producing fake certificate documents before the respondent authority. Copy of detailed investigation report of the Superintendent of Police is Annexure R-3. Since, petitioner Rajkumari is married daughter of the deceased employee and as per provision of National Coal Wage Agreement she is not entitled to obtain compassionate appointment, hence the case of the petitioner cannot be considered and in these circumstances, petitioner's petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. It is an admitted position in this case that father of the petitioners late Ramsharan was working with respondent authority in the post of Loader and he expired on 07.09.2006. It is also not disputed that wife of deceased Ramsharan viz. Baijant Kunwar claiming compassionate appointment to her daughter Rajkumari and respondent authority issued letter for medical examination on 10 / 12 16.07.2010.
8. As per respondent, some complaints were received against the application of the petitioner Rajkumari and complaint was sent to Superintendent of Police and after enquiry, it was found that petitioner Rajkumari is married daughter of Ramsharan. So, as per provisions of National Coal Wage agreement, she is not entitled to obtain compassionate appointment.
9. Now, by amendment, the petitioner No.1 added Premchand and Sheetla as petitioner No.2 and 3 , where the petitioner Premchand is her brother and the other petitioner is her sister. The petitioner filed additional document vide Annexure P-09, which is death certificate of her mother Baijant Kunwar and Annexures P-10 and P-11 copy of succession case filed by wife of Premchand viz. Anita as per application of Anita, her husband Premchand is a handicapped and mentally unstable. So, she wants compassionate appointment and as per Annexure P-11, his case was dismissed in default on 14.11.2011 by the learned Civil Judge, Class I, Baikunthpur (C.G.).
10. Respondent Authority objected on this ground that the petitioner is married daughter of late Ramsharan, but this Court in various judgments observed that married daughter is also entitled for compassionate appointment. This Court observed in WPS No. 11 / 12 5935/2021 in which SECL is contesting party held in paragraphs 9 & 10 which read as under:-
"9. Of late, this Court has been receiving too many litigations of similar and identical nature. The point of issue involved in the present writ petition already stands well settled for well over a couple of years now. In spite of that the respondents still are not considering the claim for dependent employment in terms of the decision which already stands settled in the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Asha Pandey Vs. Coal India Ltd. & Others and a series of judgments thereafter which have all been upheld uptill the Stage of Supreme Court.
10. It is high time that respondents should take necessary steps for modifying the NCWA to the aforesaid extent and Respondent Authorities also should take necessary steps in sending necessary instructions to the various Area Headquarters under the SECL highlighting these aspects and also apprise the officers in respect of judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Asha Pandey Vs. Coal India Ltd. & Others and subsequent decisions on the same issue. The claim for dependent employment should henceforth be considered ignoring the aspect of claimant being a married daughter. Respondent Authorities should consider the claim of the claimants strictly in accordance with the provision of NCWA except the ground of claimant being a married daughter."
11. In the light of above judgment and in the present case also no other objection was raised by the respondent authority and it is clear that the petitioner Rajkumari is legal heir of late employee Ramsharan, so she is entitled for compassionate appointment. In the light of Asha Pandey and other cases and it is also clear that now, Premchand S/o Ramsharan is also supporting claim of the 12 / 12 petitioner Rajkumari. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed.
12. Ex consequenti, impugned inaction Annexure P-1 dated 11.02.2015 and Annexure P-2 are set aside and the petitioner Rajkumari is directed to file fresh application along with all the documents and respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner No. 1 Rajkumari for dependent employment and to grant the same, subject to fulfillment of other requirements entitled for dependent employment in terms of provisions of the law governing field.
13. Let the exercise be completed within the period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) Judge Uttej