Bansh Lal Rajwade and another vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Challenge in this petition is to the letter dated 15/16-3-2007 (Annexure P/1) and also letter 27-5-2008 (Annexure P/2) whereby the application for grant of compassionate appointment to the first petitioner was rejected, and thereafter, it was confirmed by the appellate authority. The facts, in brief, relevant for adjudication of the lis, involved in this petition are that Late Bandhan Ram Rajwade, father of the first petitioner and husband of the second petitioner, while working as General Mazdoor, at Bhatgaon Colliery, died in harness on 2-1-2003 (Annexure P/3). The petitioners approached the respondent authorities for payment of CMPF and Gratuity and other general fund as well as for grant of compassionate appointment to the first petitioner. The grant of compassionate appointment to the first petitioner was declined by the respondent authorities on the ground that they were not nominated in the service record of Late Bandhan Ram Rajwade. The petitioners, thereafter, obtained a succession certificate from the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Surajpur, vide order dated 9-2-2005 (Annexure P/5) to the effect that the petitioners were the legal heirs of the deceased Bandhan Ram Rajwade and they were entitled to payment of CMPF and Gratuity. However, in respect of grant of compassionate appointment, the learned Civil Judge held that no direction to grant appointment in SECL may be issued. On the basis of the above stated order, the petitioners approached the respondent authorities for grant of compassionate appointment which was rejected by the impugned communication dated 15/16-3-2007 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that since their names were not recorded in the service record, it was not possible to grant compassionate appointment to the first petitioner.

There against, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner to the Director (Personnel), SECL, on 29-3-2007 (Annexure P/6). Since the appeal was not decided in time, a writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 1269/2008 was preferred by the petitioners. This Court, by order dated 29-2-2008 (Annexure P/8) after recording the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the appeal would be decided within a reasonable time, disposed of the petition. Thereafter, the appellate authority, affirming the order passed by the Personnel Manager, and on the same ground, held that there is no provision under the NCWA to grant compassionate appointment to the first petitioner. It was further held that the Civil Court has declared the petitioners as legal heirs only for the purpose of payment of CMPF and Gratuity, and not for grant of compassionate appointment. Thus, this petition.

Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the order dated 9-2-2005 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Civil Judge, Class I, Surajpur is clear and unambiguous, as it has been held that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased employee. However, direction or order could not be passed for grant of employment only because it was for the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners on the basis of their being legal heirs of the deceased employee for grant of compassionate appointment. Interpretation of the respondents that the Civil Court has declined to grant compassionate appointment is misconceived. The respondents/authorities have not understood the same in its proper perspective.

On the other hand, Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that since a considerable long time has passed, thus, at this stage, the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment would not be achieved, for which the provision for compassionate appointment was made. Once the Civil Court has declined to pass order in respect of grant of employment, and, also there was no mention of the first petitioner in the service record of the deceased employee, the impugned communications dated 15/16-3-2007 and 27-5-2008 are just and proper.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the authorities have not properly appreciated the order of the Civil Court which has attained finality. It is well settled that no court can give direction to appoint any person, even on compassionate basis. However, once it has been held by the Civil Court that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Bandhan Rajwade, contention of the respondent counsel that the name of the petitioners were not mentioned in the service record, is misconceived and deserves to be rejected.

Understanding of the judgment by the authorities is necessarily flawed as once an order been passed holding the petitioner as legal heirs of the deceased employee, they are entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment under the policy of the employer. It is not the case of the employer that there is no policy granting compassionate appointment to the dependents or the legal heirs of the employees dying in harness.

The second contention that there is an inordinate delay, is noticed to be rejected as the petitioner has been approaching the authorities since the beginning. However, the petitioners did not succeed in their attempt before the authorities and they were made to take recourse to competent Civil Court for obtaining succession certificate in their favour. Thus, this ground is not available to the respondents while considering the case of the petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment.

In view of the foregoing, the impugned letters/orders dated 15/16-3-2007 (Annexure P/1) and 27-5-2008 (Annexure P/2), are quashed and the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the first petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, being the legal heirs of the deceased employee and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, on its own merits.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs.