1. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders communicated vide letters dated 3.8.2000, 11.12.2000 and 21.1.2002 whereby his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents and further for a direction upon the respondents to appoint him under the provisions of Clause 9.3.2 of National Coal Wage Agreement-VI.
2. Petitioner's case is that his father late Rameshwar Mahto was a regular employee of respondent-CCL and was posted at Kuju Colliery. He died in harness on 23.2.1997 After his death, petitioner submitted his application on 25.10.1997 for appointment on compassionate ground. On submission of application, petitioner was asked to wait till he attains 18 years of age. It is contended by the petitioner that after attaining majority he submitted another application on 26.9.1999, which was rejected on the ground of non-availability of his name in the live roster and also on the ground of late submission of application. Petitioner preferred an appeal. In the meantime, petitioner's application which was submitted in 1997 was reconsidered and again the same was rejected on the ground of delayed submission of application by two years.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that there is a limitation of Six months for submission of application for compassionate appointment which period was revised to One year by Circular dated 1.1.2002 It is stated that petitioner applied after expiry of two years and three months from the date of death of the deceased employee. Further case of the respondents is that one of the family member i.e elder son of the deceased employee namely, Bharat Mahto is already in employment in M/s B.C.C.L which is one of the subsidiary company of the Coal India Ltd. In that view of the matter, any appointment to other family members of deceased employee is not permissible as the same will defeat the purpose and object of the scheme of compassionate appointment.
4. I have heard Mr. A.K Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M.M Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. Mr. M.M Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondent Company pressed the stand taken in the counter affidavit that the elder brother of the petitioner is already in employment and therefore the question of giving other employment to the petitioner does not arise. This fact was seriously disputed by the petitioner by filing rejoinder to the counter affidavit.
6. Since the petitioner seriously disputed the averments made in the counter affidavit that Bharat Mahto is his elder brother, this court directed the respondents to produce the service record of Bharat Mahto and also to procure the attendance of Bharat Mahto in Court. On the next date i.e on 26.9.2003, respondents procured the attendance of Bharat Mahto who stated before this court that he is not the son of deceased Rameshwar Mahto nor is the elder brother of the petitioner rather he is the son of Hiru Mahto and is employed in BCCL. Mr. M.M Banerjee learned counsel also admitted that from the service record of Bharat Mahto it appears that he is son of Hiru Mahto and not the son of late Rameshwar Mahto.
7. I am fully conscious of the law that the very purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is frustrated if such application is made after a long period of time from the death of the employee. But in the instant case, the way respondents have acted on the application of the petitioner, it can be safely concluded that it is because of the arbitrary action of the respondents, petitioner could not get employment in time. The arbitrary action of the respondents is evident from the facts discussed herein after.
8. As noticed above, immediately after the death of his father the petitioner submitted an application in 1997 when he was minor and he was asked to submit application after attaining majority. It: 1999, petitioner again submitted an application which was rejected and the order was communicated vide letter dated 2.8.2000 A copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ application. It transpires from the said letter that the application was rejected on the ground that he was under age in 1997 and his name was not kept in live roster and also there was considerable delay in applying for employment. In response to the said letter, petitioner reiterated that he submitted his application well within time in the year 1997 itself and he was asked to wait till he attains majority. On his application the matter was enquired into by the Officers of the respondents as to whether the petitioner had submitted his application in 1997. This was confirmed by the Officers of the Kuju Area vide letter dated 9.6.2001 addressed to the Deputy Personnel Manager, C.C.L, Ranchi. The Officers of the Kuju Area alongwith his letter sent original application dated 28.7.97 submitted by the petitioner. For better appreciation, letter dated 13.4.2001 issued by Personnel Officer, Area of C.C.L is reproduced herein below:
The Staff Officer (P)
Kuju Area.
Dear Sir,
With reference to the letter No. GM(P)/2D-9.3.2001.PF/821 dated 27.2.2001 of Dy.PM(MP) CCL, Ranchi originally addressed to you this is to inform you that Sri Mohan Mahto, S/o late Rameshwar Mahto (Ex-employee of Kuju Colliery) submitted his application for employment under 9.3.2 on dated 25.10.97 photocopy of which has already been sent alongwith his original application for employment but part III i.e format for employment has been submitted on 21.5.99 as he did not complete 1*8 years of age on 25.10.97
This is for your kind information and necessary action please.
Yours faithfully
Personnel Officer
Kuju Colliery
Ehc.: As above.”
9. The application of the petitioner was again rejected and the same was communicated vide letter dated 21.1.2002 Again the respondents arbitrarily rejected the application on the ground of submis sion of application after more than two years.
10. From these facts, it is evident that although petitioner submitted his application in 1997 which was confirmed by the authorities of the respondents but the claim of the petitioner was rejected on frivolous ground of delay of two years in submission of application. Curiously enough respond ents have taken a new stand in the coun ter affidavit that since the elder brother of the petitioner namely, Bharat Mahto is al ready in employment in a subsidiary com pany of Coal India Ltd. namely, BCCL, petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of NCWA-VI. This fact has also been falsified from the statement made by Bharat Mahto in court and also from his service record. In these circumstances, in my considered opinion, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment since arbitrarily dealt with by the respondents can not be thrown out merely on the ground of expiry of more than five years from the date of death of the deceased employee. I have no doubt in my mind that, it is only because of the arbitrary stand taken by the respondents, the petitioner has been deprived of from getting employment in terms of the N.C.W.A-VI.
11. At this stage, it would be more useful to refer the relevant clause of N.C.W.A-VI which has been annexed by the respondents as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Clause 9.3.2 lays down the provisions with regard to employment to the dependant of the worker who dies while in service. Clause 9.5.0(i), (ii) and (iii) reads as under:
(i) In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependant would have the option to either accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 3000/- per month or employment irrespective of her age.
(ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to causes other than mine accident and medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0 if the female dependant is below the age of 45 years she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 2000/-, per month or employment.
(iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0 if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 15 years and above in age he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualification when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii) above.
12. From the scheme quoted herein above, it is clear that if on the date of death of the deceased employee, the male dependant is 15 years and above in age then he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualification when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation. Admittedly, in 1997 petitioner was more than 15 years of age and an application was filed by the petitioner in 1997 but neither the petitioner was kept in live roster nor the widow of the deceased employee was paid monetary compensation. After attaining 18 years of age petitioner as per the aforesaid clause applied for compassionate appointment in 1999 which has been arbitrarily rejected by the respondents on the ground of delay. While the petitioner approached this court by filing instant writ application third case has been made out by the respondents that petitioner's appointment was refused on the ground of his elder brother, having been in employment of the subsidiary company. This fact was subsequently falsified in the manner discussed herein above.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ application is allowed and the impugned letters are quashed. Respondents are directed to give benefit of National Coal Wage Agreement-VI to the petitioner by appointing him in place of his deceased father, who died in harness, as regular employee of the Company.