Disposed¶30

Kishan Kumar v. the Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Jharkhand HC9 Sept 2024WPC/3125/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, W.P. (S) No. 3125 of 2023, decided 09.09.2024 by Justice Deepak Roshan. Keywords: compassionate appointment; Central Coalfields Ltd.; CCL; NCWA clause 9.5.0(iii); live roster; minor dependent; under-age rejection; death in service 27.05.2012; Kathara Colliery; family pension; retiral dues; counter affidavit para 20; liberty to apply for monetary claims; Annexure-7 letter dated 13.02.2020; writ disposed without relief.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted. Compassionate appointment claim rejected; monetary-benefits claim not entertained; petitioner left free to apply to the respondent authorities for any admissible monetary dues under NCWA/company rules, to be decided after verification of records. ¶30

Kishan Kumar Vs the Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment — on the ground that his name was not kept in the live roster owing to his under-age at the time of his mother's death — was valid notwithstanding the NCWA provision for keeping a minor dependent in the live roster until majority. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

Clause 9.5.0(iii) of NCWA stipulates that where an employee dies in service and no employment has been offered, a male dependent of the worker who is 12 years and above is kept in the live roster and is to be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualification when he attains majority (18 years); this provision is invoked when an employee dies while in service.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner was about 11 years old at the time of his mother's death and his 2016 application (made as a minor) was beyond the limitation prescribed under NCWA, his application upon attaining majority was rightly rejected; there is no infirmity in the impugned order and his claim for compassionate appointment stands rejected.

¶27

Key takeaways

The claim that other monetary benefits standing in the deceased mother's name were not paid is not entertained, as para 20 of the counter affidavit categorically states no claim is due and the counter affidavit was not rebutted by the petitioner.ratio¶28
No relief can be granted, but the petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned respondent for any monetary claim admissible under NCWA and the company's rules that has not been paid; any such application shall be decided after verification of records.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by son of a Central Coalfields Ltd. employee who died in service on 27.05.2012 challenging the letter dated 13.02.2020 rejecting his compassionate appointment on the ground that his name was not kept in the live roster due to under-age. Held: under clause 9.5.0(iii) NCWA, only a male dependent aged 12 years and above is kept in the live roster for employment on attaining majority. The petitioner was about 11 years old at his mother's death; his 2016 application (as a minor) was beyond the NCWA limitation, and his post-majority application was therefore rightly rejected — no infirmity in the impugned order. The claim for unpaid monetary dues (family pension etc.) was declined as para 20 of the counter affidavit stating nothing is due went unrebutted; however, the petitioner may approach the respondents for any admissible monetary claim under NCWA/company rules, to be decided after verification of records. Writ application disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3125 of 2023

¶2

Kishan Kumar, aged about 22 years, Son of Late Jitu Ghansi @ Jeetu Ghansi, Mother’s Name-Late Gudiya Devi, Resident of M Q-470 Kathara Gomia Bokaro, P.O.Kathara, P.S.-Gomia, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand.

¶3

....Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Central Coalfields Ltd. through its Chairmancum-Managing Director, having its office at Coal Bhawan Premise No.-04, MAR, Plot No.-AF-III, Action area-1A, Newtown, Rajarhat, P.O. & P.S.-Rajarhat, District-Kolkata, West Bengal;

¶6

The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O. & P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand;

¶7

The General Manager (P & IR), Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O. & P.S.-Kotwali, DistrictRanchi, Jharkhand;

¶8

The Senior Manager, (Personnel)/MP, CCL, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O. & P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand;

¶9

The Project Officer, Kathara Colliery, Central Coalfields Ltd, Kathara, P.O.-Kathara, P.S.-Gomia, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand. ....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶11

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Adv. Mr. Avnish Kr. Pathak, Adv. For the Resp.-CCL : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Adv.

¶12

04/Dated:-09.09.2024

¶13

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶14

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside the letter dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure-7), whereby the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that his name was not kept in live roster due to under age.

¶15

The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities, especially, respondent No.4 to pay entire dues payable to the petitioner due to death of her

¶16

mother, such as, family pension and other monetary benefits with statutory interest.

¶17

3. The brief fact of the case is that the father of the petitioner died during lifetime of his mother and the mother of the petitioner also died on 27.05.2012 during treatment at Central Hospital, Ramgarh, while she was on duty. The petitioner was the only son/legal heir of his deceased mother who was appointed and working under the respondent No.5. At the time of death of Gudiya Devi (mother of the petitioner) on 27.05.2012, the petitioner was aged about 11 years and when the petitioner attained the age of majority, he had submitted an application for compassionate appointment before the respondent. The said application was rejected by the respondents on the ground that at the time of death of his mother, who was the ex-employee of the respondent company, the petitioner was only 11 years old and thus his case for compassionate appointment was rejected.

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that there is a provision in the respondent company as per NCWA to keep a minor in the live roster and further, the moment the petitioner attained 18 years, he applied for compassionate appointment; as such, the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside. Further, the entire dues, which was standing in the name of her mother at the time of her death, should be paid to this petitioner.

¶19

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Ex-employee-Gudiya Devi, died on 27.05.2012 and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 11.06.2018 and further, at the time of death of the petitioner’s mother, he was only 10 years 8 months 21 days and the petitioner had filed application for compassionate appointment after a lapse of six years.

¶20

¶21

So far as the case of keeping the minor in a live roster is concerned; a person has to be at least 12 years, so that his name can be kept in the live roster; accordingly, his claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected being time barred.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that so far as other death-cum-retiral benefits in respect of late Guria Devi (Ex-employee), who was mother of the petitioner, has been paid the detail of which has been given in para 20 of the counter affidavit and the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit.

¶23

6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the documents, it appears that the petitioner’s mother-(Ex-employee), died while in service on 27.05.2012 and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment first on 11.06.2018 and then on 18.09.2019 and on receipt of application of the petitioner, the case was examined and it was found that the deceased employee-Gudiya Devi, during her lifetime, disclosed the name of her dependent member as her son, who was nine years as on 06.09.2010.

¶24

Further, in view of 9.5.0.(iii) of NCWA, which is guiding factor of employment/monetary compensation to the male dependent; stipulates that in case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or for medical unfitness, if no employment has been offered and the male dependent of the concerned worker is 12 years and above, he will be kept in a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualification, when he attains the age of majority i.e. 18 years and during the intervening period, his name has to be kept in live roster. This provision of NCWA has to be invoked when any employee dies while in service.

¶25

Since the petitioner was only about 11 years at the

¶26

¶27

time of his mother’s death; coupled with the fact that in the year 2016, he made an application while he was a minor but that was beyond the limitation as prescribed in NCWA and finally, when he attained majority he filed an application for compassionate appointment which was rightly rejected and there is no infirmity in the impugned order; as such, the claim of compassionate appointment of this petitioner is hereby rejected.

¶28

7. So far as the claim of the petitioner that other monitory benefits standing in the name of her mother has not been paid is concerned; the same is also not to be entertained in view of specific averment made in para 20 of the counter affidavit, wherein it has been categorically stated that no claim is due in this behalf; and said counter affidavit has not been rebutted by the petitioner.

¶29

As such, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach concerned respondent for any monetary claim which is admissible in accordance with NCWA and the rules of the respondent company and the same has not been paid. If any such application is made by the petitioner, the same shall be decided after verification of records.

¶30

8. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of.

¶31

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶32

vikas/AFR

¶33

Kishan Kumar v. the Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Kumar v. the Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pawan Mandal Alias Pawan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akhouri Gopalji Sahay Vs State of Jharkhand

Sanchita Bhakat Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Pramod Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Madhu Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand