Jharkhand High Court
Dhani Ram Manjhi vs Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. on 16 July, 2012
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2131 of 2005
Dhani Ram Manjhi ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Central Coalfields Limited
2. Director Personnel, C.C.L.
3. General Manager, P & IR, C.C.L.
4. Project Officer, Kuju Colliery
5. Sr. Personnel Officer, Kuju Colliery .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate
-----
6 /16.07.2012Petitioner's father Late Puran Manjhi was working as 'General Mazdoor' with the Respondents. Late Puran Manjhi, father of the petitioner, expired on 22nd July 1999 in harness. Petitioner, being dependent, has applied for the compassionate appointment vide application dated 19.10.2000. Application was rejected vide impugned order dated 01.07.2004 (Annexure 5), saying as per circular, dependent could have moved application for compassionate appointment within six months, however, since, petitioner has moved application after fifteen months, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the compassionate appointment.
Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satya Narayan Choudhary Vs. Central Coalfields Limited reported in 2007(3) JLJR 692, has vehemently argued that if during the pendency of application limitation is extended and application is within the extended period of limitation, then application should not be rejected on the ground that it was moved beyond the limitation as was applicable on the date of application. Mr. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that on 01.07.2004, Circular dated 19.06.2003 was in existence, whereby time to apply for compassionate appointment was extended to one and half year. Therefore, application, moved by the petitioner on 19.10.2000, after fifteen months from the date of death on 22.07.1999, was within one and half year.
2.As per Circular No. PD/MP/9.4.2/95/7151 dated 12.12.95, application seeking compassionate appointment, had to be moved within six months from the death of employee in harness. However, as per Circular No. PD/MP/9.3.2/02/01 dated 01.01.2002, period of six months as provided under notification dated 12.12.95, was extended to one year with retrospective effect from February 2000.
Learned counsel, appearing for the Respondents, has submitted that Circular dated 19.06.2003 was not made effective with retrospective date whereas Circular dated 01.01.2002 was made applicable with retrospective date i.e. w.e.f. February 2000.
Perusal of judgment in the case of Satya Narayan Choudhary (Supra) would reveal that Division Bench of this Court has held that limitation as applicable on the date of decision should be applied in view of the fact that Circular dated 01.01.2002 was specifically made applicable from the back date w.e.f. February 2000 and application seeking compassionate appointment was moved on 10.04.2000 within one year from the date of death on 02.08.1999 of the employee.
Coming to the facts of present case, date of death of father of the petitioner is 22.07.1999, while application seeking compassionate appointment was moved on 19.10.2000 i.e. after almost 15 months. On 19.10.2000, Circular dated 01.01.2002 was in existence, whereunder time limit to move application was one year. As discussed herein above, Circular dated 19.06.2003 was not made applicable from the retrospective period, therefore, application ought to have been moved within a year after the death of the employee.
There is no assertion made in the petition, nor any material is made available on the record justifying as to why application was moved after almost 15 years from the date of death.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209, in para 20 has observed as under :-
"20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind :
(i) Compassionate appointment cannot be made 3. in the absence of rules and regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme.
(ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time.
(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/ incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be.
(iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependents of the deceased/ incapacitated employee viz. Parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Vengra Vs. Union of India and ors. as reported in 2005 (1) J.C.R. Page 282 while placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar reported in 1994 (2) SCC 718, Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1994 (4) SCC 138, State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jafli Devi reported in 1997 (5) SCC 301 has held as under:
"When compassionate appointment to a dependent of a public sector undertaking or an entity which is a State within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is governed by a scheme or rule or circular issued in that behalf by that entity, appointments could be made by that entity only in terms of the Scheme, Rules or Circular and a Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not have jurisdiction to direct the Government or the authority concerned to go against its own scheme. The adage that hard facts make bad law should not 4. be forgotten by Courts while dealing with such cases. Courts should not also be instrumental in ushering in arbitrariness in such matters when an authority has strictly followed what it has itself set out as part of the scheme. Unless the Court is in a position to strike down the very scheme, the Court cannot direct a departure from that scheme."
However, this Court, in the case of Satyendra Bhuinya Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. In W.P. (S) No. 5176 of 2006 while discussing the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar (Supra) and Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2007 (8) SCC 549 has held as under:
"In view of the judgments of the Apex Court in the Case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar (Supra), it can safely be said that compassionate appointment cannot be granted as a matter of course, in the absence of rules and regulations issued by the Govt. or Public authority; an application of compassionate appointment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonably period of time; even in regard to the prescription of the period of limitation, authority considering the application must keep in mind the spirit of the beneficial provision made to provide the compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee so that the family of the deceased employee working in dangerous, hazardous Coal Mines may not reach to the stage of starvation; authority considering the application is bound to consider the facts and circumstances of each case while taking decision on the question of limitation.
In view of the discussion made herein before, it is thus clear that petitioner, soon after attaining the age of majority, within a year, has applied for compassionate appointment on 24.06.2003.
The BCCL is expected to act reasonably. In view 5. of peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case that father of the petitioner has died in harness leaving behind minor dependents and minor dependent can be provided compassionate appointment only after he attains the age of majority, request for compassionate appointment should have not been denied on hyper technical ground."
Having perused the judgments in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar (Supra), Sushil Kumar Vengra (Supra) and Satyendra Bhuinya (Supra), it is thus clear that compassionate appointment can be sought and granted in accordance to the Rules, Regulations, Schemes made by the State or instrumentality of the State; application of compassionate appointment must be preferred without undue delay within such limitation as prescribed. This Court, while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily should not direct to extend the period of limitation as contained in different Circulars/Statutes, however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, the period of such limitation may be relaxed in order to give effect to the beneficial provisions of the various schemes of the welfare legislation of the State including compassionate appointment by the authority considering the application on showing sufficient grounds for such delay in moving the application.
As observed hereinabove, petitioner ought to have moved application seeking compassionate appointment within one year, which admittedly he has moved after 15 months and neither any assertion is made in the petition nor any material is placed on record to justify delay in moving the application, therefore, order impugned rejecting the application as beyond limitation period does not warrant any interference.
Although, application was rejected relying on Circular of 1995, however, fact remains that application was moved beyond the period of one year, which was limitation of Circular of 2002, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
Petition is dismissed.
A.F.R. (Alok Singh, J.) R.K.