Jharkhand High Court
Kokila Devi vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Through Its ... on 12 January, 2023
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P(S) No. 6721 of 2018
------
Kokila Devi .... .... Petitioners
Vrs.
1. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad
2. Director Personal (P&IR), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
3. General Manager, Tetulmari Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
4. Project Officer Teulmari of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. .... .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate
For the BCCL :- Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate
-----
7/12.01.2023
Heard the parties.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the wife of Amrit Bauri and she is claiming appointment on compassionate ground as there is scheme of compassionate appointment. The husband of this petitioner, Amrit Bauri was appointed as a permanent employee in terms of the Female VRS Scheme. Amrit Bauri died in harness on 08.6.2013, thus the case of the petitioner, who happens to be the wife, should be considered for compassionate appointment.
3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.(BCCL) admitted that initially husband of this petitioner was appointed as a permanent employee, pursuant to the Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, in the year 1995 but he was dismissed from service on account of long unauthorized absence with effect from 3.12.2005. When the husband of this petitioner approached Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., his case was sympathically considered and it was decided to appoint the petitioner afresh, but not as a permanent employee, rather as a Badli Worker, in time category in the initial basic scale. There was a condition that he would be regularized only on completion of 190 days of attendance underground, in a particular calendar year. The husband of the petitioner accepted the said settlement dated 30.3.2009, which is in terms of the Industrial Dispute Act, and he worked till 2013 without challenging any conditions of the settlement. Further it has been submitted that in none of the calendar years the husband of the petitioner completed 190 days of attendance, thus his services was not regularized and he remained as the Badli Time Rate Worker. He further submits that as because husband of the petitioner remained till his death, a Badli Time Rated Worker, petitioner is not entitled for any relief, as there is no scheme for compassionate appointment for Badli Workers, who are temporary.
-2-4. After going through the writ application, I find that husband of the petitioner was initially appointed on 14/21.7.1995 on permanent basis. He was appointed in terms of Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent, thus he was dismissed from service with effect from 3.12.2005. Thereafter considering the case of the husband of this petitioner sympathically, the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. entered into an agreement with Amrit Bauri wherein it was decided that the Amrit Bauri will be offered a fresh appointment as underground Badli Worker in Time Rated Category. It was further agreed that he will only be regularized as a permanent employee subject to his completion of 190 days attendance in underground in a calendar year. This agreement was adhered by both the parties. The husband of the petitioner worked as Badli Worker till his death. It is an admitted case that he has not completed 190 days of attendance in underground in any calendar year during the period he served the respondents. Clause 6 of the said agreement prescribed the condition of regularization. Since the said condition was not fulfilled by the husband of the petitioner, he remained a temporary employee and his services were not regularized nor he was made permanent. Since husband of the petitioner was appointed afresh and was not a permanent employee, petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the initial order of appointment dated 14/21.7.1995. For the purpose of consideration of compassionate appointment, he must be a permanent employee of the respondent. Since husband of the petitioner was not a permanent employee of the respondents, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. is not bound to offer appointment on compassionate ground to this petitioner, who happens to be the wife of the deceased Amrit Bauri. Further the petitioner could not show any provision in the scheme which provides for compassionate appointment to dependents of a Badli Worker.
5. Thus, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN , J) anjali/