Munna Lohar vs Central Coal Field Limited

Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.—Heard Mr. N.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents .

The petitioner has filed this case for quashing the decision communicated vide letter dated 19.08.2013, issued by Deputy Personnel Officer (Respondent No. 5) whereby and where under claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.

It is submitted that petitioner''s father Jhabra Lohar was employed under the respondents who died in harness on 05.04.2000. After his death, petitioner''s mother Indira Kumari Kamin made an application for her appointment on compassionate ground which was rejected on 17.05.2001 on the ground that she was over age. After direction of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3070 of 2001 liberty was given to the petitioner''s mother to avail monetary compensation. Thereafter, pursuant to the letter dated 05.01.2010, issued by the respondent no. 3, the petitioner''s mother is getting monetary benefits in lieu of her employment. The mother of the petitioner however made an application to keep name of the petitioner in the live roster as the petitioner was minor at the relevant time. After attaining majority the petitioner made an application on 04.07.2013 for his appointment on compassionate ground which was replied vide letter dated 19.08.2013 rejecting claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was not kept in the live roster as his mother is getting monetary compensation.

Mr. N.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that respondents have acted arbitrarily and has wrongly denied the genuine claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. At the relevant time, petitioner was minor and therefore, after attaining the age of majority, he should have been considered for appointment on compassionate ground.

Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents - CCL submits that initially petitioner''s mother had claimed for her appointment on compassionate ground, which was rejected as she had crossed the age limit and as such, she was not eligible for consideration as per Clause 9.4.0 of NCWAV. Instead of appointment, she had the option to get monetary compensation. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner''s mother has already received the monetary compensation.

Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court to Para18 of the counter affidavit, where it has been stated that in the said writ petition the Management of the CCL had filed counter affidavit taking plea that the petitioner being over age of about 47 years was not eligible or considerable as per Clause 9.4.0 of NCWAV. It was stated that the petitioner has the option to accept monetary compensation of Rs.2,000/per month in lieu of such employment and now it is being paid Rs.15,712/. The Hon''ble Court was also not inclined to interfere with the order dated 17.05.2001. The Hon''ble Court was of opinion that the petitioner may avail the other benefits.

Further it was stated in para20 of the counter affidavit that the respondents-CCL has issued monetary compensation to Smt. Indra Kumari Kamin, widow of the deceased by a letter dated 05.01.2010.

Further learned counsel for the respondents draws the attention of the Court to para22, where it has been stated that the provision of keeping the name of the dependent in life roster in NCWA is as follows:

9.5.0: Employment/ Monetary compensation to female dependent.

iii. In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under clauses 9.4.0 if no employment has been offered and the male dependent 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 qualification when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the made dependent is on live roster the female dependent will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at para(i) and (ii) above. This will be effective from 01.01.2000.

Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and averments made in the writ petition, it is found that NCWA clearly speaks for keeping live roster of the dependent of the deceased employee but it further speaks that at the time of consideration for keeping life roster minor should be 12 years of age. Admittedly, the petitioner was 11 years of age at the time of consideration.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the settled principles of law, rules and guidelines, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed in the instant writ petition. As a cumulative effect, this writ petition merits dismissal.