Allowed

Paramjeet Singh v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Chhattisgarh HC13 Nov 2024WPS/4568/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a writ petition questioning the rejection of a compassionate ground appointment application for the petitioner. The Court held that the National Coal Wage Agreement does not prohibit claims based on unauthorized absence leading to death and quashed the impugned order, directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner within 60 days.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20.02.2015 was quashed. The respondent authority SECL is directed to appoint the petitioner within 60 days commensurate with his qualification.

Paramjeet Singh Vs South Eastern… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

SATISH TUMANE

¶3

Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No.4568 of 2016

¶7

Paramjeet Singh S/o Shri Salik Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Dubchhola, P.O. Sonamani, Tahsil Khadgawan, P.S. Khadgawan, District Korea Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Chairman- Cum- Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Director Personnel, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Deputy General Manager, (Man Power) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Area Personnel Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Chirmiri Area, District Korea Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Sub Area Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kurasia Sub Area, Chirmiri Area, P.O. Kurasia Colliery, District Korea Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner : Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate appears along with Shri Shashwat Gupta, Advocate For Respondents : Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate

¶17

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

14.11.2024

¶20

By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 20.02.2015 (Annexure P/1), whereby, the

¶21

2 / 5

¶22

respondent No.3-Deputy General Manager (Manpower), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Headquarter Bilaspur, has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner’s mother for appointment of her son on compassionate ground on account of death of her husband-Salik Ram.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the reasons assigned in the order impugned, rejecting the application for petitioner’s appointment that since his father was unauthorizedly absent from duties for over more than 4½ years is, however, not provided under the provisions prescribed under the National Coal Wage Agreement, yet his claim has been refused. It is submitted further that petitioner’s father was in roll of the respondent-SECL Company, when he died, therefore, the approach of the respondent authorities in rejecting the application of the petitioner’s mother for appointment of her son (petitioner herein) on compassionate ground, is not at all sustainable in the eye of law, hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondentSECL submits that the petitioner’s father was unauthorizedly absent from his duties for over more than 4½ years, therefore, the application as made by the petitioner’s mother for appointment of her son (petitioner herein) is rightly turned down, as such, there is no infirmity in the order impugned, rejecting the alleged application seeking appointment on compassionate ground.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record.

¶26

3 / 5

¶27

From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner’s father namely–Salik Ram was performing the duties as SDL Helper in the employment of the respondent–SECL Company, who, in the year, 2007, became severely ill and was admitted into the Colliery Hospital. He had applied for sick leave and was continuously remained under treatment and the said information was reported to the Colliery Management. It appears further from the Return submitted by the respondents that since the petitioner’s father was absent from 29.08.2007, a charge sheet was issued to him on 28.05.2009, but, the departmental inquiry, as was initiated against him, could not be completed as he died in the meantime on 11.11.2011. It appears further that immediately upon the death of the petitioner’s father, an application (Annexure P/3) was made by the petitioner’s mother namely-Son Kunwar before the concerned authority on 16.01.2012 seeking compassionate appointment of her son-Paramjeet Singh, the petitioner herein. The said application appears to have been rejected by the concerned respondent authorities vide its order impugned dated 20.02.2015 (Annexure P-1) observing, inter-alia, that since the petitioner’s father was unauthorizedly absent from duties for over more than 4½ years, therefore, he is not entitled to be appointed as such on compassionate ground.

¶28

It is to be seen that the compassionate appointment is governed by Biparte Agreement (Annexure P-10), where Clauses 9.3.0, 9.4.0 and 9.5.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA-VI) will be held to be operative in NCWA-IX, which was signed on 31^st January, 2002. The said provision, which provides for the Employment/payment of monthly monetary compensation to the dependent, is relevant for the purpose, reads as under:-

¶29

4 / 5

¶30

9.3.0, 9.4.0 Provision of Employment/payment of monthly monetary & 9.5.0 compensation to Dependent

¶31

(i) The Clauses 9.3.0, 9.4.0 & 9.5.0 of NCWA- VI will be operative in NCWA-IX till a revised scheme is jointly prepared keeping in view the various verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court at the earliest.

¶32

(ii) A Sub-committee of JBCCI will formulate a scheme keeping in view various directives of Supreme Court on the subject within three months of signing of the Agreement.

¶33

(iii) Meanwhile provision of employment as mentioned at (i) above, shall be on basic wage of Cat-I as trainee for a period of 06 months. During the training period they will have the status of permanent employee. On completion of training they shall be regularized as Cat-I employee. However, those dependents in possession of Technical/professional qualification in B.E./Diploma will be considered for appointment in higher category, keeping in view their qualification, suitability and vacancy.

¶34

(iv) The monthly monetary compensation payable to the female dependent in case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness of the employee shall be @ Rs.6,000/- with effect from 01.05.2008.

¶35

(v) In case of death either in mine accident or due to other reasons or medical unfitness, if no employment has been offered and the male dependent of the concerned worker is 12 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 dependent is on live roster, the female dependent will be paid monetary compensation as given in (iv) above.

¶36

From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it appears that the reasons assigned by the respondent authorities, rejecting the alleged application (Annexure P-3) for compassionate appointment of the petitioner on the ground that since his father was unauthorizedly absent from duties for over more than 4½ years, is, however, not provided therein, therefore, the alleged ground cannot be made a basis for refusal of petitioner’s claim. Yet, the

¶37

5 / 5

¶38

petitioner’s claim for appointment as was made by his mother on 16.01.2012, i.e. immediately after the death of her husband has been rejected. The approach of the respondent authorities rejecting the petitioner’s claim for his appointment on compassionate ground is, therefore, liable to be and is hereby set aside.

¶39

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order impugned dated dated 20.02.2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.3 is quashed and, the concerned respondent authority-SECL is hereby directed to appoint the petitioner as claimed by her mother on 16.01.2012, as soon as possible preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. Needless to say that the petitioner’s appointment will be commensurate with his qualification and entitlement.

¶40

No order as to cost(s).

¶41

SD/(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

¶42

Tumane

Paramjeet Singh v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramjeet Singh v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vidya Sharma Vs Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur

Pramod Kumar Miri Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shrawan Bagdongi Chouhan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Maheshwar Markole Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mohan Lal Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kumari Jaishree Punchbhai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh