Rubi Sinha vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited

The petitioner is aggrieved of the decision of the respondent-M/s BCCL under which she has been denied compassionate appointment on the

ground that she is a married daughter of the deceased employee.

Petitioner's father who was employed as Lamp Cleaner under M/s BCCL died in harness on 22.10.2010. An application for compassionate

appointment for the petitioner's brother was submitted which, however, was rejected vide order dated 03.09.2011 on the ground that he was found

medically unfit. The petitioner claims that on behalf of the family the deceased employee which comprised her mother, sister and brother, she

submitted an application on 06.09.2011 for compassionate appointment to her. This application was followed by the reminder dated 19.12.2012,

however, when no decision was taken on her application she sought response from M/s BCCL through an application filed under RTI.

The communication dated 3/4.10.2016 would disclose that her claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that under

NCWA there is no provision for appointment of a married daughter on compassionate ground.

Referring to a decision in “Kalyani Kumari Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand and Others†reported in 2018 (3) JBCJ 166 (HC), the learned

counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent-M/s BCCL cannot discriminate between a son and a daughter of the deceased employee;

discrimination in public employment on the basis of sex would be violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Plea raised by the petitioner is that if a married son can be granted compassionate appointment, a married daughter cannot be denied appointment

on compassionate grounds.

In “Central Coalfields Limited vs. Hemanti Devi†(L.P.A. No. 196 of 2017), the Division Bench of this Court has read down the expression

“unmarriedâ€​ qualifying the expression daughter as a non-essential component of Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA.

In the counter-affidavit the respondents, however, have taken a plea that the petitioner's husband is a practicing advocate at Dhanbad Civil Courts

and at the time of death of her father she was staying separately, with her husband but not with her parents. In these facts claim of the petitioner that

she was almost fully dependent on the income of her father has been denied.

Under Clause 9.5.0, a surviving spouse, son, legally adopted son and unmarried daughter are in the first line of dependents who are considered

direct dependent on the employee. However, in absence of a direct dependent an adopted son, son-in-law and widowed daughter/daughter-in-law, if

almost fully dependent on income of the deceased employee, have been held entitled for compassionate appointment. In “Hemanti Deviâ€, the

Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:

“We accordingly sustain the decision which is appealed against. We, however, make it clear that the authority, taking decision on the basis of the

direction of the learned First Court, should ascertain, upon giving the writ petitioner an opportunity of hearing, that she was dependent on her

mother’s income at the time of her mother’s death and at present does not have sufficient means to run her household irrespective of the fact

as to whether she was married or not. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The exercise shall be completed within a period of eight

weeks from the date of communication of this orderâ€​.

The petitioner's claim, thus, can be considered not as a direct dependent of the deceased employee but as an indirect dependent. It is not in dispute

that no opportunity to the petitioner was granted to establish that she was almost fully dependent on the income of her father at the time of his death.

The fact that the petitioner was staying with her husband is not a conclusive proof on her dependency on the income of her father.

Accordingly, the communication contained in letter dated 3/4.10.2016 is quashed. The Assistant Manager (Personal)/Work Force/Appointment-

respondent no. 4 shall permit the petitioner to produce evidence on her dependency and a decision on this issue whether the petitioner fulfills the

criteria under NCWA, that is, almost fully dependent on the deceased employee or not shall be taken within eight weeks. It is clarified that if the

petitioner is found not entitled for compassionate appointment, monetary compensation to her mother shall be extended from the due date; right of her

mother to receive monetary compensation is admitted by the respondents.

The writ petition stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.