Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Pairwa Devi vs The Central Coalfields Limited on 9 July, 2018

Author: D.N. Patel

Bench: Amitav K. Gupta, D.N. Patel

                                   1                          L.P.A. No.382 of 2017


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 L.P.A. No. 382 of 2017
                       With
                 I.A. No.5523 of 2017
Pairwa Devi, wife of late Triveni, resident of Village - Fulsarai, PO-
Hesla, PS- Giddi-A, District - Ramgarh
                            ...      ...     ...      ...   ...     ...        Appellant
                          Versus
1.    The Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum-
      Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Kotwali, Ranchi
2.    The Director Personnel, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga
      House, Kotwali, Ranchi
3.    The General Manager (PLIR), Central Coalfields Limited,
      Darbhanga House, Kotwali, Ranchi
4.    The Chief General Manager, Kuju Area, Central Coalfields Limited,
      P.O. & P.S.- Kuju, District - Ramgarh
5.    The Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Central Coalfields Limited,
      Kuju, Ramgarh
6.    The Staff Officer (P&A), Kuju Area, Central Coalfields Limited,
      Ramgarh
7.    The Project officer, Kuju Colliery, Central Coalfields Limited,
      Ramgarh
8.    The Senior Officer (P&A), Kuju Colliery, Central Coalfields Limited,
      Kuju, Ramgarh
9.    The Deputy Personnel Manager, Kuju Area, Central Coalfields
      Limited, Ramgarh
10.   The Representative, Enquiry (Sri Rajdeo Prasad), Kuju Colliery,
      Ramgarh
11.   The Labour Welfare Officer, Kuju Colliery, Ramgarh
                        ...      ...     ...    ...     ...    ...   Respondents
                      ------

CORAM:      HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
                      -----

For the Appellant: M/s. Nehru Mahto, Advocate For the Respondents: M/s. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate

------

th 09/Dated: 09 July, 2018 (Oral order) Per D.N. Patel, ACJ.

1) This Interlocutory Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 149 days in preferring the instant Letters Patent Appeal.

2) Having heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the reasons stated in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Interlocutory Application, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring the instant Letters Patent Appeal.

3) Accordingly, I.A. No.5523 of 2017 is allowed and delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.

4) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner, whose writ petition being W.P. (S) No.3241 of 2016 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 6th January, 2017, whereby prayer for getting compassionate appointment by this appellant for her son was not accepted by the learned Single Judge and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

5) Having heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the present appellant is an original petitioner. Her husband, who was serving with the respondents, expired on 14th April, 2011.

6) Application was preferred by the widow for her compassionate appointment on 22.04.2011, 02.06.2011, 04.12.2012 and 08.02.2013. Thereafter, application was preferred for compassionate appointment of her son - Rajesh Kumar, which was received on 25 th February, 2014 and 5th December, 2014.

7) It further appears from the facts of the case that the application preferred for the son - Rajesh Kumar, was rejected on 11 th February, 2016 (Annexure 8 to the memo of writ petition). As the application for the son was preferred at a much belated stage after the death of his father, this application was not accepted by the respondents-authorities.

8) It further appears from the facts of the case that the deceased- employee, who was serving with the respondents, was absent from duty from 01.01.2000. Thus, he was not reporting for the duty at all and thereafter he expired on 14.04.2011.

9) Thus, it appears that at a much belated stage, the application was preferred for the son and hence, no error has been committed by the respondents in rejecting the application by an order dated 11 th February, 2016.

10) Compassionate appointment is not an alternative mode of employment. It is given as an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, with a view to provide immediate financial support to the family of the deceased. After several years, such application for 3 L.P.A. No.382 of 2017 compassionate appointment for her son cannot be accepted.

11) It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court; in the case of State of U.P. V. Paras Nath, reported in (1998)2 SCC 412, at paragraph nos.4, 5 and 6, as under:-

"4. Seventeen years after the death of his father, the respondent, on 8.1.1986, made an application for being appointed to the post of a Primary School Teacher under the said Rules. His application was rejected. He, thereafter, filed a writ petition before the High Court. This writ petition was allowed by the High Court and an appeal from the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence the State has filed the present appeal.

5. The purpose of providing employment to a dependent of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased Government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case.

6. We may, in this connection, refer to only one judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh. In this case, the application for appointment on similar compassionate grounds was made twenty years after the railway servant's death. This Court observed:

"The reason for making compassionate appointment, which is exceptional, is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a Government servant who dies in harness, when there is no other earning member in the family."

(Emphasis supplied)

12) It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar V. State of Bihar & ors., reported in (2000)7 SCC 192, 4 L.P.A. No.382 of 2017 at paragraph nos.2 and 3, as under:-

"2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Chandra Bhushan v. State of Bihar. Learned Senior Counsel points out that it was held in that case that an applicant's right cannot be defeated on the ground of delay caused by authorities which was beyond the control of the applicant. Learned Senior Counsel further points out that instead of following the above judgment, the same learned Judge has now held on 21-4-1997 that the application is time-barred. Learned counsel has placed before us a judgment of this Court in Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar. He submits that, in this case, a direction was given to create supernumerary posts.

3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education v. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2-6-1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief."

(Emphasis supplied)

13) It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., reported in (2009)6 SCC 481, especially at paragraph nos.11 and 12, as under:-

"11. The very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers 5 L.P.A. No.382 of 2017 financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constrains.

12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government service."

(Emphasis supplied)

14) It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar & ors., reported in A.I.R. 2009 SC 2534, especially at paragraph no.19, as under: -

"19. The principles indicated above would give a clear indication that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. In the instant case the employee died in harness in the year 1981 and after a long squabble by the dependents of the deceased, they arrived at a settlement that the son-in-law of the second daughter who is unemployed may request for appointment on compassionate grounds. The request so made was accepted by the Personnel Manager of the Company subject to the approval of the Director of the Company. The Director (P), who is the competent authority for post facto approval, keeping in view the object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment has cancelled the provisional appointment on the ground that nearly after 12 years from the date of death of the employee such an appointment could not have been offered to the so-called dependent of the deceased employee. In our considered view, the decision of the employer was in consonance with Umesh Kumar Nagpal's case and the same should not have been interfered with by the High Court."

(Emphasis supplied) 6 L.P.A. No.382 of 2017

15) In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in accepting the order dated 11th February, 2016 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P. (S) No.3241 of 2016 judgment and order dated 6th January, 2017. We are in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge and we see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

                                                           (D. N. Patel, ACJ)




Manoj/                                                     (Amitav K. Gupta, J)