Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi vs Piyashi Devi And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the appellant Central Coalfields Limited, and the learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioner.

The appellant Central Coalfields Limited, is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.03.2017, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No. 5591 of 2014, whereby the writ application has been allowed directing the appellant to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

The facts of the case lie in a short compass. The husband of the writ petitioner, namely, Dinesh Rajwar, was appointed under the appellant Company under the V.R. Scheme of his mother Smt. Janki Kamin, who took V.R.S. for the appointment of her son, i.e., the husband of the writ petitioner. He was appointed as Face Crew Trainee, vide appointment letter dated 07.07.1999, on the stipend of Rs.2,500/- per month, clearly stipulating that on successful completion of the training, the Management may consider to put him in the regular pay scale, or extend the period of training as the case may be. Admittedly, the husband of the writ petitioner died while he was only on training, on stipend of Rs.2,500/- per month. The writ petitioner made an application for her appointment on compassionate ground after the death of her husband, which ultimately was rejected by the appellant Company on two grounds, i.e., (i) that the husband of the writ petitioner was not a permanent employee of the C.C.L., and (ii) the petitioner was not the genuine wife of the deceased employee, as one application was filed before the Company doubting the genuinity of the writ petitioner to be the wife of the deceased employee.

The Hon'ble Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 10.03.2017, has given a direction for consideration of the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment, giving a finding that the writ petitioner's husband was appointed on the post which was permanent in nature, and in view of the Standing Order applicable to the C.C.L. employees, it could not be said that the writ petitioner's husband was not a permanent employee of the C.C.L. As regards the second ground questioning the writ petitioner's genuinity that she was the wife of the deceased employee, it was held that her genuinity was doubted without giving any opportunity to the writ petitioner, who would have been in a position to explain and satisfy the respondents regarding her genuineness and as such, this ground was also brushed aside by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

Learned counsel for the appellant Company has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Single cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, admittedly the husband of the writ petitioner was appointed as a 'Trainee' and was still working on the stipend basis and had not been put under the regular pay-scale of the Company, and as such, he could not be termed as a permanent employee of the Company. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a Judgement dated 22nd November, 2017, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, in L.P.A No.393 of 2017 (Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Rajan & Others), wherein it has been held that the legal heirs of only the confirmed employees could get the appointment on compassionate appointment and not otherwise, laying down the law as follows:-

"It should be kept in mind that unless the employee is confirmed by the Management, even if the training period mentioned in the appointment letter is over, such employee cannot be labeled as confirmed employee. Confirmation ought to be conferred by the Management. Confirmation cannot be assumed or presumed even if trainee period is over."

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner-respondent's case is fully covered by the aforesaid decision, and in view of the fact that admittedly the husband of the writ petitioner was still a 'Trainee', working on the stipend basis, and had not been put under the regular pay-scale of the Company, he could not be termed as a permanent employee of the Company, and there was no question of granting any compassionate appointment to the writ petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioner, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, and has drawn our attention towards the Certified Standing Orders for Workmen of Establishments under B.C.C.L., and from Clause 7.1 thereof, she has drawn our attention towards the fact that for the purpose of the Standing Orders, workmen / employees are classified in only six categories, which are as follows:-

(a) Permanent

(b) Probationer

(c) Temporary

(d) Badli or substitute

(e) Casual

(f) Apprentices

Further attention has been drawn towards Clause 7.2, which states that 'a Permanent workman' is one who is employed on a job of permanent nature for a period of at least six months or who has satisfactorily put in six months continuous service in a permanent post as a probationer.

It is submitted by the learned counsel, that admittedly, the husband of the writ petitioner had completed six months in a job, which was permanent in nature, and accordingly, he had become permanent employee on the completion of six months of service. Learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that the Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly treated the husband of the writ petitioner to be a permanent employee in the Company, and has passed the order for consideration of her employment on compassionate ground, consequent to the death of her husband in harness. The other ground questioning the genuineness of the writ petitioner has also been rightly brushed aside by the Hon'ble Single Judge. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

Having heard learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the record, we find that it is an admitted position that the late husband of the writ petitioner was not taken in regular pay scale of the post. He was still a 'Trainee' and had died while getting the stipend of Rs.2,500/- only. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that he had to be treated as a permanent employee, in view of Clause 7.2 of the Certified Standing Orders, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, admittedly, the deceased workman was not getting even the regular pay scale of the post, on which, he was appointed, as admittedly he was still in training period itself, though he had completed more than six months of his service in that job. In that view of the matter, the test of the fact whether the deceased employee was a permanent employee or not, shall depend upon whether he was getting the regular pay scale for the post on which he was working, or he was still getting the stipend as a trainee. In the present case, the deceased employee was only getting the stipend as a trainee, and by no stretch of imagination he could be treated as a permanent employee of the Company. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, holding him to be a permanent employee of the company, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

We are of the considered view that the case of the writ petitioner is fully covered by the decision of the coordinate Bench in L.P.A No.393 of 2017 (Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Rajan & Others). Since we find that the deceased employee was not a permanent employee of the C.C.L., we do not wish to enter into the second point on which the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected, questioning the genuineness of her being the wife of the deceased employee.

In view of our finding that the husband of the writ petitioner was not the permanent employee of the C.C.L., and thus, the writ petitioner was not entitled to get the appointment on compassionate ground on her husband's death, the impugned order dated 10.03.2017, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5591 of 2014, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, which we accordingly, set aside. Consequently, this L.P.A. stands allowed.