Jharkhand High Court
The Central Coalfields Limited vs Lilamati on 1 May, 2018
Author: D.N. Patel
Bench: Rajesh Kumar, D.N. Patel
1 L.P.A. No.415 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 415 of 2017
With
I.A. No.6299 of 2017
With
I.A. No.6300 of 2017
The Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, PO- Kutchary,
PS- Kotwali, District - Ranchi
... ... ... ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Lilamati, daughter of late Gangi, R/o Bhuli Quarter at Sirka, PO-
Argada, PS- Mandu (Kuju), District - Ramgarh
... ... ... ... Respondent
2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, at Darbhanga
House, Kotwali, Ranchi
3. The General Manager (P&IR), Central Coalfields Limited,
Darbhanga House, Kotwali, Ranchi
4. The Chief Manager (Karmik), Samadhan Kendra, Central
Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Kotwali, Ranchi
5. General Manager, Argada Area, Central Coalfields Limited, Argada,
PS- Mandu (Kuju), District - Ramgarh
6. The Deputy General Manager (Personnel)/S.O. (P&A), Argada
Area, Mandu, Ramgarh
7. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Sirka Colliery at
Sirka, Argada, Ramgarh
8. The Deputy Personnel Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Sirka
Colliery at Sirka, Mandu, Ramgarh
... ... ... ... Performa Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-----
For the Appellant: M/s. Rajesh Lala, Arpit Kumar, Advocates For Respondent No.1: M/s Gautam Kumar Singh, Advocate
------
08/Dated: 01st May, 2018 (Oral order) Per D.N. Patel, A.C.J. I.A. No.6299 of 2017
1) This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 161 days in preferring the instant Letters Patent Appeal.
2) Having heard learned counsel and looking to the reasons stated in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the interlocutory application, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring the instant Letters Patent Appeal.
2 L.P.A. No.415 of 20173) Accordingly, I.A. No.6299 of 2017 is allowed and delay in filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.
L.P.A. No.415 of 20174) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondent No.1 challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.4147 of 2016 dated 20th January, 2017, whereby, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition preferred by the respondent No.1 and thereby, gave compassionate appointment to the respondent No.1 (original petitioner), because of the death of her mother, which has taken place in the year 1998. Thus, the compassionate appointment was given to the respondent No.1 (original petitioner) after approximately two decades and being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by this order, the original respondent No.1 has preferred this 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 mother of respondent No.1 (original petitioner) expired on 13th March, 1998, when she was in the services of this appellant.
6) It appears that the respondent No.1 was aged 13 years, 11 months and 12 days, as on date of death of her mother i.e. on 13th March, 1998.
7) It appears that a letter was addressed to the original petitioner and thereafter, this appellant took permission from the Delhi Main Office for condonation of delay, which was granted and respondent No.1 (original petitioner) was informed to prefer an application in prescribed format on attaining the age of majority (Annexure 2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal).
8) It appears that the respondent No.1 (original petitioner) has never approached this appellant, nor any application was preferred for approximately 16 long years.
9) It appears that in 'Samadhan Cell' of this appellant, an application was preferred in the year 2014-15 by the respondent No.1 (original petitioner) for getting compassionate appointment, which was rejected by this appellant mainly on the ground of delay.
10) Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the death of mother of respondent No.1 (original petitioner) has taken place on 13th March, 1998. Thereafter, upon attaining the age of majority by respondent No.1 (original petitioner), she was given guidance to prefer 3 L.P.A. No.415 of 2017 an application in the proper format, but, she had never approached this appellant and after 16 years, in 'Samadhan Cell' of this appellant, application was preferred by the original petitioner for getting compassionate appointment, which is rightly rejected by this appellant, because, the very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now. Compassionate appointment is not an alternative mode of grant of employment. There is no right vested in the respondent No.1 to get the compassionate appointment. It is granted only with a view to support the family of the deceased-employee.
11) It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court; in the case of State of U.P. V. Paras Nath, as reported in (1998)2 SCC page-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:4 L.P.A. No.415 of 2017
"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., as reported in (2000)7 SCC page-192, 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) 5 L.P.A. No.415 of 2017
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., as reported in (2009)6 SCC page-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 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., as reported in A.I.R. 2009 SC page-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 6 L.P.A. No.415 of 2017 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)
15) In view of the aforesaid decisions, after the death of the mother in the year 1998, even though, the opportunity was given by this appellant vide Annexure 2 to apply for compassionate appointment after attaining the age of majority by respondent No1, she has waited unnecessarily for 1½ decades. These aspects of the matter have not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1. The very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now, after twenty long years. Hence, we, hereby, quash and set aside the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.4147 of 2016 dated 20th January, 2017. This Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and disposed of.
I.A. No.6300 of 201716) In view of the final order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal, this I.A. No.6300 of 2017 stands disposed of.
(D. N. Patel, ACJ)
Manoj/ (Rajesh Kumar, J)