Fuleshwari Devi vs Central Coalfields Limited And Ors

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the concerned respondents to take a final decision regarding the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment in place of her deceased father late Daulat Mahto who died in harness on 23.03.1995.

The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Father of the petitioner Late Daulat Mahto was working as Category I Mazdoor in Sugia Karma Colliery under Karma Project, C.C.L. who died in harness on 23.03.1995 leaving behind widow, 4 sons and 2 daughters. In the year 1987 respondents have issued service excerpt to petitioner in which name of petitioner has been mentioned as daughter. After death of their father, other family members of the petitioner were not interested for compassionate appointment except the petitioner and therefore she has contacted the respondents several times but every time they have stated that in the N.C.W.A. there is no provision for giving compassionate appointment to a married daughter, therefore, denied to accept her application. On 15.05.2017 petitioner has seen a news in newspaper that married daughter is also entitled for compassionate appointment, then petitioner has submitted application to Project Officer, C.C.L., Sugia Karma Colliery vide application dated 26.05.2017. The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the judgment reported in 2018 (3) JBCJ page 166 (HC) has been pleased to held that denial of compassionate appointment to a married daughter is illegal. In NCWA there is no provision to give Compassionate appointment to married daughter due to which respondents have not accepted the application of petitioner. Thereafter vide representation dated 13.09.2018 the petitioner has requested the General Manager, C.C.L. i.e. Respondent No.5 by annexing the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court to consider her case for compassionate appointment but till date no order has been passed on her representation and hence the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon'ble Court for redressal of her grievance.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents are duty bound to take a final decision on the application filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment in place of her deceased father. Non-consideration of claim of petitioner on the ground that in NCWA there is no provision for providing compassionate appointment to married daughter is illegal and amounts to gender discrimination. An agreement u/s 18 of the I.D. Act states that if it includes a condition which amounts to Gender discrimination then that clause is illegal. N.C.W.A. is an agreement as per the I.D. Act, therefore, binding on the parties involved in the Agreement. A claim which is based on an agreement cannot be denied on the ground of delay. The respondents are duty bound to consider claim of every compassionate appointment on its own merit.

Learned Counsel for the C.C.L. Mr. Amit Kumar Das draws the attention of the Court towards paragraph No.14 of the counter-affidavit and submits that though representation was made in the year 1998 but the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2018 and hence the same is liable to be dismissed on delay and laches.

Be that as it may, having gone through the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that present writ petition needs no interference and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief so far as it relates to compassionate appointment for the following facts and reasons:

i. The petitioner has approached this Court at a very belated stage after long delay.

ii. The father of the petitioner died in the year 1995 and the writ petition has been preferred in the year 2018 i.e. after expiry of 23 years. No reasons have been assigned as to why for 23 long yeasrs the petitioner did not knock the door of this Court.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. vrs. T.T.Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 has held as under:-

"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant- a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis."

Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "U.P.Jal Nigam and Anr. vrs. Jaswant Singh & Anr., reported in (2006) 11 SSC 464 has held as under:

"6. The question of delay and laches has been examined by this Court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise of the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, can his writ petition be heard after a couple of years on the ground that same relief should be granted to him as was granted to person similarly situated who was vigilant about his rights and challenged his retirement which was said to be made on attaining the age of 58 years. A chart has been supplied to us in which it has been pointed out that about 9 writ petitions were filed by the employees of the Nigam before their retirement wherein their retirement was somewhere between 30.06.2005 and 31.7.2005. Two writ petitions were filed wherein no relief of interim order was passed. They were granted interim order. Thereafter a spate of writ petitions followed in which employees who retired in the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, woke up to file writ petitions in 2005 and 2006 much after their retirement. Whether such persons should be granted the same relief or not ?"

The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors. vrs. Nirval Singh, reported in (2019) 6 SSC 774 has held as under:

"Delay in pursing claim/approaching court would militate against claim for compassionate appointment as very objective of providing immediate amelioration to family would stand extinguished."

"5. The fundamental principle which has to be kept in mind is that there is no inherent right to obtain a compassionate appointment and such compassionate appointment has to be in accordance with the existing policy as the objective is to ameliorate the condition of the family at the relevant stage of time and it is the deviation from the rule of merit."

Admittedly, the petitioner rose from deep slumber after 23 long years. The Court cannot grant relief to a person who is not vigilant of his rights and approaches the Court after a long delay.

As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, no interference is warranted and resultantly this writ petition stands dismissed.