Calcutta High Court
Sanjit Bouri vs Coal India Ltd. & Ors on 18 August, 2014
Author: I. P. Mukerji
Bench: I. P. Mukerji
ORDER SHEET
W.P. No. 506 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SANJIT BOURI Petitioner
Versus
COAL INDIA LTD. & ORS. Respondents
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI Date : 18th August, 2014.
For Petitioner : Mr. Subrata Ganguly, Adv.
For Respondents : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv.
Ranjit Bouri was the elder brother of the writ petitioner, Sanjit Bouri. Ranjit was a worker with Eastern Coalfields Ltd. He died on 11th June, 1996. Ranjit was unmarried at the time of his death. The National Coal Wage Agreement-VI provides for employment to one dependent of the worker who dies while in service. This is provided in paragraphs 9.3.2 to 9.3.4 of the agreement.
There is no issue that Ranjit had no direct dependents because direct dependents under this agreement mean wife/husband, son, unmarried daughter, adopted son etc. Under this agreement, in the absence of a direct heir, an indirect heir may be employed. A brother is recognised as an indirect heir [paragraph 9.3.3]. The other eligibility criteria are that the dependent should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not more than 35 years in case of male and 45 years in case of female spouse.
While considering the application of the writ petitioner, Eastern Coalfield Ltd. found some discrepancies which they pointed out in their letter dated 12th January, 2007. The most important of these discrepancies was that there was no mention of the fact whether the deceased had left behind any direct dependent or not. It was pointed out therein that on the 2 date of the application, the age of the applicant came to 18 years 5 months. The writ petitioner was asked whether his name was kept in the live roaster.
Had the story ended here, I would not have any hesitation in dismissing this application on the basis of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Anil Badyakar & Ors. reported in (2009) 13 SCC 112 which opines that a compassionate appointment provision creates no vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. It is lost by delay.
But it appears from the internal memorandum of the respondent company prepared on or about 9th March, 2009 that the issue regarding the writ petitioner's appointment was kept open and under consideration. Paragraph 4 of the memorandum states as follows :
"4. Regarding late Ranjit Bouri, of Shyampur "B" colliery of Mugma area it has been informed to the union that, date of death of the deceased employee is 11/06/2006. Sri Sanjeet Bouri brother (indirect dependent) of the concerned deceased employee claimed employment. File returned for certain clarification regarding NOC of other dependents. File recently submitted by the area. Same will be examined in order of seniority along with other cases. (Action Dy.PM(Empl)WD)."
Now, no dispute is raised regarding the assertion that the writ petitioner did not have any direct heir.
If the writ petitioner's application was still under consideration on 9th March, 2009, in my opinion, the writ application filed in 2011, is not very seriously hit by delay.
If that be the position, it appears from the above memorandum that all that the writ petitioner is required to do is to satisfy the authorities with 3 regard to the discrepancies pointed out in the letter of the respondent company dated 12th January, 2007.
Considering the Coal Wage Agreement, I do not think that providing employment has got any connection with vacancy because the provisions are clear that one dependent of the worker, dying while in service, shall get appointment subject to fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in those paragraphs. Existence of a vacancy is not a prescribed condition. I order accordingly.
In these circumstances, this writ application is allowed by directing the respondent company to appoint the writ petitioner in a suitable position in place of his deceased brother, provided he removes the defects mentioned in the letter dated 12th January, 2007 by 15th September, 2014. The writ petitioner will be deemed to have been kept in the live roaster, if not already kept. He should be appointed in terms of this order by 31st December, 2014.
Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities.
(I. P. MUKERJI, J.) K. Banerjee A.R. [C.R.]