(Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.)
Central Coalfields Limited ____________________________ Appellant;
v.
Bipin Murmu and Others _________________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 3830 of 2024 (@ Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Civil) No. 4736 of 2019), decided on March 5, 2024
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant-Central Coal Fields Limited is aggrieved by the order dated 17th September, 2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, whereby an intra-Court appeal1 filed by it against the order dated 02nd December, 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition2, was dismissed, and it was held that the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the respondent no. 1 (Son-in-law of the deceased employee of the appellant) was entitled for being granted compassionate appointment.
3. A brief reference to the relevant facts is considered necessary.
4. One Shri Jit Ram Manjhi was employed with the appellant. He died in harness on 11th August, 2005, and was survived by his wife (Smt. Munni Devi) and two daughters. On 02nd November, 2005, one of the daughters of the deceased employee, Smt. Parwati Devi had applied for compassionate appointment, which was turned down by the appellant on the ground that a married daughter is not entitled for compassionate appointment in terms of the National Coal Wage Agreement3. On 26th April, 2006, the wife of the deceased employee submitted an application seeking employment on compassionate ground for the respondent no. 1 (husband of Smt. Parwati Devi). In support of the claim that the respondent no. 1 was dependant on the income of the deceased employee, he produced a Dependency Certificate dated 18th July, 2006, issued by the Circle Officer, Ramgarh. The said request of the respondent no. 1 was however rejected by the appellant on 16th June, 2008. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the respondent filed a writ petition4 before the High Court, that was dismissed vide order dated 26th February, 2014, on the ground that the name of the respondent no. 1 was not recorded as the dependant in the service record of the deceased. Dissatisfied by the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondent no. 1 preferred an intra-Court appeal5, which was disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated 28th April, 2014, with a direction issued to the appellant to consider the claim of compassionate appointment of the respondent no. 1 on the basis of the Dependency Certificate and other relevant documents produced by him.
5. In view of the directions issued by the High Court, the appellant passed a detailed order on 09th September, 2014, stating inter alia that as per the provisions of the NCWA for compassionate appointment, in case a direct dependant is unavailable, only then can an indirect dependant be considered for compassionate appointment. It was observed that in the instant case, the wife of the deceased employee was alive and she ought to have applied for monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment in terms of the provisions of the NCWA, which she didn’t do. It was also observed that the family relation certificate dated 24th October, 2005, issued by the BDO Ramgarh does not reflect the name of the respondent no. 1 as a family member of the deceased employee. It contains the names of the wife of the deceased and his married daughters. During his lifetime too, the deceased did not approach the Management by submitting any application for declaring the respondent no. 1 as wholly dependant on him and that he was residing with him. As a result, the claim for compassionate appointment of the respondent no. 1 was held as not maintainable under the provisions of the NCWA.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent no. 1 preferred a writ petition6, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 21st October, 2016 and the order dated 09th September, 2014, issued by the appellant rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment of the respondent no. 1 herein was quashed. The said order passed by the learned Single Judge on 21st October, 2016 was taken in appeal by the appellants that has resulted in passing of the impugned judgment. The Division Bench opined that the learned Single Judge had given valid reasons to turn down the rejection order passed by the appellant and there was no reason to declare the respondent no. 1 as ineligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.
7. We may note that the issue at hand is governed under Chapter-IX of the NCWA that deals with Social Security. Clause 9.3.0 stipulates the provisions of employment to dependants. The following Clauses are relevant and are extracted hereunder:
“9.3.0 Provision of Employment to Dependants
9.3.1 Employment would be provided to one dependant of workers who are disabled permanently and also those who die while in service. The provision will be implemented as follows:
9.3.2 Employment to one dependant of the worker who dies while in service
In so far as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0.
9.3.3 the dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependant on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependant of the deceased.
9.3.4 the dependants to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as given in Clause 9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment.
xxxxx
9.5.0 Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependant
Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependants of workmen who die while in service and who are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated as under:
(i) In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependant would have the option to either accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 4,000/- per month or employment irrespective of her age.
(ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to cause other than mine accident and medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if the female dependant is below the age of 45 years, she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 3,000/- per month or employment.
In case the female dependant is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment.
(iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependant 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 qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii) above. This will be effective from 01.01.2000.
(iv) Monetary compensation wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependant attains the age of 60 years.
(v) the existing rate of monetary compensation will continue. The matter will be further discussed in the Standardisation Committee and finalised.”
8. It is apparent from bare perusal of the aforesaid clauses that employment would be provided by the appellant to one dependant of an employee who died in harness. The rider added is that insofar as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by Clause 9.5.0, which provides for employment/monetary compensation to female dependants of workers who died in harness while in service or who were declared medically unfit and states clearly in sub-clause (ii) that in case the female dependant crosses 45 years of age, she would be entitled only to monetary compensation per month and not to employment.
9. The submission made by learned counsel for the respondent that if a female dependant crosses the age bar of 45 years and not be considered fit for being granted employment, then Clause 9.3.3 would come into play is fallacious. As is apparent on a reading of Clause 9.3.3, it is only if no direct dependant is available for employment, would the brother, widowed daughter, widowed daughter-in-law, son-in-law residing with the deceased and wholly dependant on his earnings be considered for compassionate appointment.
10. In the instant case, admittedly, the wife of the deceased was alive and she is still alive. Since she had crossed the age bar of 45 years on the date of the demise of her husband, i.e. 11th August, 2005, she was entitled for being granted monetary compensation in terms of Clause 9.5.0 and not to employment. Therefore, it was a fit case where the appellant ought to have granted monetary compensation to the widow of the deceased employee, which for reasons best known to it, was not done. A perusal of the communication dated 09th March, 2006, addressed by the appellant to the daughter of the deceased simply states that there is no provision in the appellant-Company to provide service to a married daughter. The appellant being a model employer, ought to have stated in the very same letter that the widow of the deceased employee, who was alive, would be entitled to grant of monetary compensation as per the Rules.
11. At the end of the day, the widow of the deceased employee was neither granted compassionate appointment, having crossed the age bar of 45 years, nor was she granted any monetary compensation to which she was entitled in terms of the NCWA.
12. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 17th September, 2018, passed by the Division Bench and order dated 21st October, 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge are quashed and set aside as unsustainable. The appointment of the respondent no. 1 being irregular, is hereby quashed. It is, however, made clear that any amounts paid to the respondent no. 1 shall not be recovered by the appellant, as he has rendered service w.e.f. 20th December, 2018. It is further deemed appropriate to direct the appellant to pay monetary compensation to the widow of the deceased, as per her entitlement under the NCWA, revised from time to time, from the date of the demise of her husband (the deceased employee), i.e. from 11th August, 2005, onwards. The arrears computed upto 31st March, 2024 shall be released in favour of the widow of the deceased employee within six weeks from today and the month to month monetary compensation shall be released w.e.f. 01st April, 2024, in terms of the provisions of the NCWA.
13. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no orders as to costs.
———
1 LPA No. 428 of 2017
2 W.P.(S) No. 3374 of 2015
3 For short the ‘NCWA’
4 Writ Petition No. 5885/2008
5 LPA No. 134 of 2014
6 W.P. No. 3374/2015
