Allowed

Central Coalfields Limited through Its Hod Personnel Admn Sri Sanjay Kumar v. Ram Sundar Munda and Ors.

Jharkhand HC7 Jun 2022LPA/522/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Letters Patent Appeal, the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Bench held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of time, specifically noting that such a claim cannot survive long after the death of the employee.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal was allowed and the order dated 20th June 2017 passed in the underlying Writ Petition was set aside.

Central Coalfields Limited through Its Hod… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶2

LPA No. 522 of 2017

¶3

Central Coalfields Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered Office at Darbhanga House, PO Ranchi University, PS Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), through its Chairman-cumManaging Director, having office at Darbhanga House, PO Ranchi University, PS Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) and through its HOD (Personnel-Admn), Ranchi Sri Sanjay Kumar, son of Late Tarkeshwar Singh, residing at Gandhi Nagar, PO Kanke, PS Gonda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶4

….. ….. Respondent No.1/Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ram Sundar Munda, son of Late Deo Lal Munda, resident of Village Chakme, PO & PS Burmu, District Ranchi (Jharkhand);

¶7

… … Writ Petitioner/ Respondent

¶8

General Manager, Rajrappa Area, Central Coalfields Limited, PO & PS Rajrappa, District Hazaribagh (now Ramgarh) (Jharkhand); 3. Senior Personnel Officer (RWP), Central Coalfields Limited, PO & PS Ramgarh Project, District Hazaribagh (now Ramgarh) (Jharkhand);

¶9

Project Officer, Rajrappa Washery Project, Central Coalfields Limited, PO & PS Rajrappa, District Hazaribagh (now Ramgarh) (Jharkhand).

¶10

… … Respondents/ Proforma Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶13

¶14

For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate

¶15

For the Respondent No.1 : Mrs. M.M. Pal, Sr. Advocate

¶16

-------- O R D E R

¶17

7^th June 2022

¶18

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.

¶19

Central Coalfields Limited (in short, 'CCL') is in appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court (as adopted by the High Court of Jharkhand) against the order dated 20^th June 2017 passed in WP(S) No. 1029 of 2011.

¶20

By the said order, the writ Court directed CCL to take a decision on the application of Ram Sundar Munda who is the son of late Deo Lal Munda for compassionate appointment by a reasoned order to be passed within two months.

¶21

Briefly stated, at the time of death of his father the respondent No.1 was a minor and, therefore, his sister Shushri Munni Kumari moved an application for settlement of death-cum-retiral benefits and compassionate appointment under Clause 9.4.2 of NCWA-IV. The father of the respondent

¶22

LPA No. 522 of 2017

¶23

No.1 had died in harness on 1^st May 1994 and in response to the application filed by Shushri Munni Kumari, the Senior Personnel Officer, (RWP) informed her by letter dated 17^th September 1994 that she was required to produce a succession certificate as her name was not mentioned in the service records of her father. A succession certificate was finally issued on 8^th December 2003 and thereafter most of the death-cum-retiral benefits were released sometime in the year 2005.

¶24

The case set up by the respondent No.1 is that on attaining the age of majority he filed an application on 9^th September 1999 which was followed by another representation dated 15^th November 1999 for his employment on compassionate ground under Clause 9.4.2 of NCWA-IV. The aforesaid applications were declined vide order dated 27^th June 2000 on the ground of delay of more than five years. From the records, it appears that the respondent No.1 continued to pursue the matter, however, no final decision was taken in the matter and by an order dated 10^th January 2012 it was communicated to him that his appeal to CMD/ CCL for considering his employment under Clause 9.4.2 of NCWA was declined.

¶25

Before the writ Court, a plea was raised that the application submitted by the respondent No.1 on attaining the age of majority cannot be said to be belated application and it was on the advice of the employer that succession certificate was obtained and promptly produced by him.

¶26

In support of the said plea, the respondent No.1 relied upon the judgment in “Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar” (2007) 11 SCC 447 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the authority cannot be permitted to take benefit of its own latches and negligence. 7. The learned writ Court held as under:

¶27

“13. Admittedly, the petitioner and his sister applied for succession certificate as per the direction of the respondents and immediately after they received the same, they turned up submitting the same which cannot be termed to be a delay. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. The matter therefore needs reconsideration by the respondents.

¶28

14. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements and legal propositions, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner deserves to be reconsidered. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 27.06.2000 and 17.06.2004 (Annexures- 5 & 9) and also the order dated 22.12.2011 communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 06/10.01.2012 (Annexure-12), are hereby quashed and the concerned authorities of the respondents are directed to take a final decision on the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on merits by passing a reasoned order

¶29

3 LPA No. 522 of 2017

¶30

within a period of two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 15. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed. Needless to say that the entire exercise be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the petitioner is found fit for appointment on compassionate ground, letter of appointment to that effect be issued within a further period of four weeks.”

¶31

The primary challenge made by CCL to the direction issued by the writ Court is that more than 23 years after the employee died a direction for compassionate appointment could not have been issued, as it would frustrate the very object behind compassionate appointment.

¶32

To support the writ Court's order, the learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that there was no delay and on account of procedural delay, if any, a valuable right accruing under NCWA could not have been denied to the respondent No.1.

¶33

Mrs. M.M. Pal, the learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1, has referred to and relied upon the following judgments:

¶34

(i) “Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar” (2006) 9 SCC 195; (ii) “Madan Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India” (1999) 6 SCC 459; (iii) “Mohan Mahto v. Central Coal Field Ltd.” (2007) 8 SCC 549; (iv) “Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar” (2007) 11 SCC 447; (v) “M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. v. Basant Bhuiya” 2004 (2) JCR 112 (Jhr); (vi) “Pradip Kumar Mehta v. The Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.” 2006 (4) JLJR 267, and; (vii) “Surthi Devi v. Central Coalfields Ltd.” 2019 (2) JLJR 713.

¶35

In the first place, we would observe that at the time of death of his father the respondent No.1 was not eligible for appointment under the provisions of NCWA-IV. We have not been shown whether a minor at that time was eligible for putting him on live roster. Even the age of the respondent No.1 is not disclosed in any of the applications filed for compassionate appointment. Now a person who was not eligible for appointment on the date of death of his father cannot claim that on attaining majority his application for compassionate appointment must be considered. It is well-settled that the provisions for compassionate appointment are exceptions to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The object behind framing a scheme for compassionate appointment is to extend support to the family of the deceased in distress and, therefore, a right of consideration for compassionate appointment cannot survive long after the death of the employee.

¶36

4 LPA No. 522 of 2017

¶37

In a catena of judgments – recently in “Central Coalfields Limited v. Parden Oraon” 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299 – the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reminded the High Courts the very object behind the compassionate appointment and that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after long lapse of time.

¶38

In “Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana” (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :

¶39

“2……The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.”

¶40

Now insofar as the issue of delay is concerned, whatever may be the reason it is a matter of record that immediately on receiving the application by the sister of the respondent No.1 the family was informed to obtain a succession certificate which was given about nine years after the death of the employee. By that time, the family survived and therefore it cannot be contended that the claim for compassionate appointment still subsisted. The provisions under NCWA have attained statutory force and as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Umesh Kumar Nagpal” a claim for compassionate appointment cannot be exercised at any time in future.

¶41

Recently, in “ State of MP v. Amit Shrivas” (2020) 10 SCC 496 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that an application for compassionate appointment must be decided within the four corners of the scheme existing on

¶42

LPA No. 522 of 2017

¶43

the date of death of the employee.

¶44

On a reading of the order dated 20^th June 2017 passed in WP(S) No. 1029 of 2011, we gather an impression that the writ Court did not adjudicate the matter within the well-known parameters for deciding such kind of lis between the parties. The writ Court at all times must remain alive to the situations arising in a case and should always keep in mind the cascading effect which may ensue on account of any order passed by it. If on an application for compassionate appointment, directions such as have been issued in the present case are issued and, that too, 23 years after the death of the employee there would be chaotic situation in the system. Therefore, we cannot approve the approach of the writ Court which directed CCL to consider an application for compassionate appointment of the respondent No.1 about 23 years after the death of the employee.

¶45

For the aforesaid reasons, we find serious infirmity in the order dated 20^th June 2017 passed in WP(S) No. 1029 of 2011 and, accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶46

LPA No. 522 of 2017 is allowed.

¶47

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶48

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

¶49

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 7^th June 2022 SB/Nibha-NAFR

Central Coalfields Limited through Its Hod Personnel Admn Sri Sanjay Kumar v. Ram Sundar Munda and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Coalfields Limited through Its Hod Personnel Admn Sri Sanjay Kumar v. Ram Sundar Munda 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Rabbani Mian Vs Union of India through Ministry of Power

Ms Laxmi Business and Cement Company Ltd. through Its Authorised Signatory Sri Sudhir Kumar Jain Vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through Its Chairman and Ors.

Ms Laxmi Ispat Udyog through One of Its Director Sri Anupam Agarwal Vs Jharkhand Urja Vitaran Nigam Ltd. through Its Chairman and Ors.

Ram Babu Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Dwarika Prasad Singh Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Ashrit Lakra Vs the State of Jharkhand