Md. Tufail Khan vs Central Coal Fields Limited

The petitioner, son of the deceased-employee, namely, Md. Irshad Khan, is aggrieved of order dated 24.01.2014 by which his prayer for

compassionate appointment has been rejected.Â

Plea taken by the petitioner is that when claim of his mother for compassionate appointment was declined he had attained the age of majority and

accordingly, he made an application for his appointment on compassionate grounds which has been erroneously rejected by the respondent-

authority.  Â

The employee-Md. Irshad Khan who was employed as Security Guard under the respondent- M/s CCL at Dhori Khas Colliery was killed

while preventing theft of coal on 14.01.1994. Mother of the petitioner was the sole nominee in Form-A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund.Â

Claiming compassionate appointment for herself she has submitted an application on 04.07.1996Â which was rejected by the respondent-authority by

an order dated 17.03.1999 on the ground that this application was submitted beyond six months’ period which was prescribed by the Coal

company for entertaining an application for compassionate appointment. His mother again submitted an application on 25.11.1999 for her own

appointment on compassionate grounds and subsequently she has submitted another application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner, her

son. It appears that the petitioner came to this Court in W.P.(S) No.3175 of 2013 for a direction upon the respondents to dispose of his

representations. Pursuant to order dated 29.10.2013 by which the writ petition stood disposed of, the respondent-authority has passed the impugned

order dated 24.01.2014 declining claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Â

It is not in dispute that by an order dated 17.03.1999 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner’s mother for compassionate appointment, she

was granted monetary benefit. At the time of death of his father the petitioner was aged about 10-11 years, whereas minimum age for keeping a male

dependant on live-roster at the relevant period, when NCWA-V was in operation, was          15 years and accordingly, the

petitioner was not kept on live-roster. Insofar as, claim of the petitioner’s mother for compassionate appointment is concerned, the impugned

order dated 24.01.2014 records that in the official records age of the petitioner’s mother was about 42-43 years, however, the Medical Board has

assessed her age at about 52 ½ years as on 09.12.1998. On the date of death of her husband, the petitioner’s mother had already crossed the

maximum age of 45 years for compassionate appointment under the respondent-Coal company. It is also pertinent to record that order dated

17.03.1999 by which claim of the petitioner’s mother for compassionate appointment was rejected was not challenged by her and this order has

become final. Accordingly, I find no error in the impugned order dated 24.01.2014 insofar as claim for compassionate appointment to the

petitioner’s mother is concerned. Moreover, by now she has already crossed the age of superannuation. Â

Insofar as, the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment is concerned, at the time of death of his father he was not eligible

to be kept on           live-roster. The plea, that after the claim of his mother was declined cause of action for him to lay a claim

for compassionate appointment for himself arose as he had attained majority by that time and therefore, he should have been grantedÂ

compassionate appointment,                is untenable. A person, who was only aged about 10-11 years of age at the

time of death of his father, cannot raise a claim for compassionate appointment on attaining the age of majority, if he was not kept on live-roster.Â

In view of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 24.01.2014 and accordingly, the writ petition is

dismissed. However, the petitioner may approach the Project Officer for payment of monetary compensation which was allowed to the

petitioner’s mother and granted to her vide order contained in letter dated 17.03.1999. The Project Officer shall accordingly ensure payment of

monetary compensation to the petitioner’s mother, within six weeks.          Â