Dismissed

Jyoti Devi v. Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Jharkhand HC3 Nov 2023WPC/2532/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a termination order and sought compassionate appointment for the petitioner's deceased husband. The High Court of Jharkland dismissed the petition, holding that the employee ceased to be in service upon termination due to unauthorized absence, thus ineligible for compassionate appointment.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jyoti Devi Vs Central Coalfields Ltd… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W. P. (S) No. 2532 of 2020

¶3

Jyoti Devi, W/o Late Suchit Kumar Versus

¶4

.... .. ... Petitioner(s)

¶5

Central Coalfields Ltd. through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

¶6

Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Ltd., Darbhanga House, Ranchi

¶7

General Manager (MP & IR), Central Coalfields Ltd., Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

¶8

General Manager, Argada Area, Central Coalfields Ltd., Sirka, Mandu, Ramgarh.

¶9

The Project Officer, Sirka Group, Central Coalfields Ltd., Sirka, Argada, Ramgarh.

¶10

Public Information Officer, Argada Area, Central Coalfields Ltd., Sirka, Argada, Ramgarh. .. ... ...Respondent(s)

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate Mr. Uday Prakash, Advocate For the CCL : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate Mr. Hemant Kr. Gupta, Advocate

¶13

…... 07/ 03.11.2023 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief(s) :-

¶15

(a) For issuance of direction challenging the termination order of the petitioner’s husband on the charge of unauthorized absence from 09.05.2012 to 26.05.2012;

¶16

(b) For direction upon the respondent-authorities to consider the petitioner’s claim on compassionate appointment under Clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA-X;

¶17

¶18

2. As per the case of the petitioner, her husband Suchit Kumar, was designated as piece rated worker and was in employment of Sirka Colliery under Argada Area, Ramgarh of M/s CCL.

¶19

3. Petitioner’s husband went missing since 15.03.2010 and could not be traced out, and the matter was reported to the concerned Area Management by the petitioner by a representation dated 30.07.2012 and further representation made on 08.10.2015. Further, a sanha entry was also made regarding missing of her husband on 16.10.2015. In the month of October, 2018, he was traced roaming near the petitioner’s house in critical health condition, as such, he was taken for treatment, but he died on 23.10.2012 which was reported to the Management on 30.11.2018.

¶20

4. On 26.05.2012, charge-sheet was issued against the employee for being absent from duty and without any satisfactory cause, a departmental enquiry followed

¶21

vide Memo dated 01.04.2013 and he was terminated from service with effect from 16.07.2017.

¶22

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the copy of memo initiating a formal departmental enquiry and the copy(s) of the enquiry/ notice as well as report was never served upon the petitioner.

¶23

6. The petitioner was constrained to obtain the requisite information regarding departmental enquiry under the RTI Act, 2005. The departmental proceeding has been assailed on the ground that the charge-sheet was not issued by a competent authority. As per Circular dated 25.08.2003 referred to in Para 26 to 28 of the counter-affidavit, the competent authority was the Project Officer whereas the charge-sheet has been issued by Senior Manager, Mining. Therefore, charge-sheet was not issued by a competent authority. Under the circumstances, the entire disciplinary proceeding was vitiated on these grounds.

¶24

7. It is further submitted that the enquiry was initiated against the missing person and no notice was served to the petitioner to enable her to participate in the proceeding.

¶25

8. The sum and substance of argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner regarding termination of her husband is that notice was not properly served and copy of the enquiry report or the proceeding was never served and proceeded ex-parte.

¶26

9. Learned counsel for the Respondent(s)-CCL has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that admittedly the petitioner absented from the service for a prolonged period, for which departmental proceeding was initiated on the charge of wilful and unauthorised absence from the duty and he was terminated after full-dress enquiry vide order dated 22.09.2016. After the said termination the order remained unchallenged till his death. Law is settled on the point that in case of wilful absence from duty, the Management has very right and authority to terminate the employee from the service.

¶27

10. Reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director & Ors. vs. Smt. Parden Oraon passed in Civil Appeal No.897 of 2021 . This is also a case of similar nature where the compassionate appointment had been sought for against the employee who was missing for ten years for which he was terminated from service and compassionate appointment was declined.

¶28

11. The matter is before this Court for consideration is that can an employee claim indefeasible right to continue in employment despite wilful absence from duty for a prolonged period?

¶29

Secondly, can a compassionate appointment be sought for on the death of an employee who has been terminated from service?

¶30

12. Answer to both these questions can only be in the negative. This is a case where the husband of the petitioner (employee) was terminated on 16.06.2017 and the order of termination is under-challenge in the instant Writ Petition which has been filed in the year 2020. Argument that Petitioner was blissfully unaware of departmental proceeding the termination order and came to know about this when she went to office to inform about the death of her husband, is something difficult to comprehend. After her unauthorised absence from duty, his salary must have been stopped, but quite surprisingly she did not approach the office although it has been stated that she had informed about his missing status. Her husband went missing since 2010 and the station diary was made in the year 2015. Against this factual background it appears to be inconceivable that Petitioner was unaware about the departmental proceeding and the subsequent order of termination from service. Challenge to the order of termination has been made only to make a claim for employment of compassionate ground, which is shorn of any merit and is accordingly rejected.

¶31

13. Employment at the time of death is the basis of claim for compassionate appointment, which is absent in the present case. Husband of the Petitioner had been terminated long before his death, therefore he ceased be an employee at the time of his death. In these circumstances claim for employment is not tenable.

¶32

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, I do not find any merit in the instant case for exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court.

¶33

Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed.

¶34

Sandeep/

¶35

Uploaded.

Jyoti Devi v. Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jyoti Devi v. Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jawed Ashraf And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Meera Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Durgesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chorus Agro Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Pawan Kanoi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jahid Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Ziyauddin Ansari Alias Ziyasuddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand