Dismissed

Smt Lilavati Devi v. Central Coal Field Ltd. Through Its General Manager L Andr And Ors.

Jharkhand HC7 Mar 2019WPC/4362/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge dismissed the writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the wife of a deceased trainee employee. The Court held that since the trainee's service was never confirmed by management, the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment, relying on the Division Bench judgment in LPA No. 393 of 2017.

What did the court decide?

Application for compassionate appointment dismissed; no merit found.

Smt Lilavati Devi Vs Central Coal Field… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

WP(S) No. 4362 of 2017

Smt. Lilavati Devi

…... Petitioner(s)

Vs.

1. Central Coalfields Limited, through its General Manager (L&R), Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

¶7

2. The Chief General Manager, Piparwar Area, CCL, Bachra, Piparwar, Chatra.

¶8

3. The Assistant Manager (P), CHP/CPP, Piparwar Area, CCL, Bachra, Piparwar, Chatra.

¶9

4. The Project Officer, CHP/CPP Project, CCL, Bachra, Piparwar, Chatra. …... Respondent(s)

¶10

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Amitabh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN .

¶13

08/07.03.2019: In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that her husband Anil Kumar Sahu died in harness on 14.4.2016 while he was working as Ex. Category-I Trainee in Central Coalfields Limited (for short “CCL”).

¶14

The husband of the petitioner was employed under the scheme of land Looser on 14.4.2012. It is submitted that the land of the petitioner's husband was acquired by the CCL for the purpose of mining and other related activities and in lieu of which, employment was granted to the husband of this petitioner. The husband of the petitioner was kept a trainee employee. The confirmation of his service had to be made subject to verification of land record and after obtaining a certificate of “No Dispute”. The husband of the petitioner thereafter died in harness on 14.4.2016. As the husband of this petitioner died in harness, this petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment. As the claim of the petitioner was kept pending, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the aforesaid facts, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. He further submits that the respondent in counter affidavit has taken the plea that the land, in lieu of which, the husband of the petitioner was employed, does not belong to him and a show cause was issued to the husband of the petitioner, but the husband of the petitioner died in harness. He also submits that the show cause notice or any purported proceeding will have no effect, therefore, the petitioner may be appointed on compassionate ground as the husband of the petitioner died in harness.

¶16

Counsel for the CCL submits that the husband of the petitioner was a trainee employee and his service was never confirmed. He further submits that the confirmation period of six months has elapsed but there is no specific order of confirmation passed by the respondent authorities because it was found that the land, against which, the husband of the petitioner was employed, does not belong to him. He further submits that since the service of the husband of the petitioner was not confirmed, the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. He heavily relied

¶17

upon the judgment dated 22.11.2017 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 393 of 2017 and its analogous cases (Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Rajan and Ors.) , whereby, in the similar type of cases, the Division Bench of this Court held that the dependent of a trainee employee cannot be given compassionate appointment.

¶18

After hearing the parties, I find that the husband of this petitioner was employed as a land looser in CCL. He was appointed as Trainee employee subject to confirmation of his service. Admittedly, the service of the husband of the petitioner was not confirmed as there is no order of confirmation from the side of respondent. The Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 393 of 2017 and its analogous cases has held that there cannot be an automatic confirmation of the service. It has also been held that

¶19

the completion of training period will not amount to confirmation of service of an employee. It is necessary to quote the relevant portion of the judgment dated 22.11.2017, which runs as follows:-

¶20

“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 labelled as confirmed employee. Confirmation ought to be conferred by the Management. Confirmation cannot be assumed or presumed because of lapse of time. Confirmation cannot be assumed or presumed even if the trainee period is over.”

¶21

In the said LPA, this Court held that no compassionate appointment can be granted to the heirs of these types of employees.

¶22

Applying the ratio of the Judgment dated 22.11.2017 passed in LPA No. 393 of 2017 and it analogous cases by a Division Bench of this Court, I find that the service of the husband of the petitioner was not confirmed. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. Thus, I find that there is no merit in this writ petition.

¶23

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶24

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶25

Anu/-CP-2.

Smt Lilavati Devi v. Central Coal Field Ltd. Through Its General Manager L Andr And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lilavati Devi v. Central Coal Field Ltd. Through Its General Manager L Andr And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B Kalawati Vs Education

Sagar Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Controller Of Examination Staff Selection Commission And Ors.

Ramashish Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mantosh Kumar Mondal Vs Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Chairman

Ram Bihari Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand