Shiva Mehra vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others

Pramath Patnaik, J.

I.A. No. 413 of 2015

This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 35 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this Interlocutory application especially in paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We, therefore, condone the delay of 35 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 413 of 2015 stands allowed and disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 352 of 2014

The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 08.07.2014 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4333 of 2013 wherein the claim of the petitioner/appellant for compassionate appointment under relevant scheme of the respondents-C.C.L has been rejected on the ground of inordinate delay.

Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case in a nutshell are that the mother of the appellant died in harness on 09.10.1997 during her employment as Wagon Loader. At the time of death of the mother, the appellant was aged about 12 years. Since the father and elder brother of the appellant were physically handicapped, the elder brother of the appellant made an application before the management-C.C.L for recording the name of the appellant in live roster. The elder brother of the appellant, Mr. Chote Lal is stated to have made an application on 17.09.1998 indicating the aforesaid fact. The appellant attained the age of majority in the year 2003, but, it appears that the appellant made a claim for compassionate appointment in the year 2011. Since his grievances fell on deaf ears, left with no alternative, he approached this Court by filing writ application being W.P. (S) No. 2333 of 2012 for a direction upon the respondents to consider his claim for compassionate appointment, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.05.2012 with a direction to the concerned respondent to treat the writ application filed by the petitioner as representation and to dispose of within a period of twelve weeks. Accordingly, the petitioner made an application on 16.06.2012 (Annexure 6) before the General Manager (Personnel), BCCL for redressal of his grievances, which stood rejected vide order dated 06.07.2012.

Being aggrieved with the order of rejection dated 06.07.2012, the petitioner preferred writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 4333 of 2013, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.07.2014.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of impugned order dated 08.07.2014 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4333 of 2013, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge due to following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements:

"(i). Admittedly, at the time of death of mother of the appellant, the appellant was aged about 12 years. He attained the age of majority in the year 2003, but, for the reasons best known to the appellant, he preferred application for compassionate appointment in the year 2011, after eights years of attaining majority and on that score, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant.

(ii). Furthermore, very purpose of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the sufferings of the family from immediate distress. In the case at hand, death of the mother of the appellant took place in the year 1997 and the family of the deceased have tided over the crisis after more than a decade. If at the time of death of the employee, the dependant is a minor and if the post is kept reserved till he attained majority, it will be in conflict of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and very purpose of compassionate appointment would be defeated.

Dealing with the same issue, the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Local Administration Department and Another Vs. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, held as under:

"7........ It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying-in-harness one of his eligible dependents is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succor to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the bread winner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased-employee would be directly in conflict with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind." Applying the same principle in the case at hand, we see no reason to provide compassionate appointment to a person after a lapse of more than a decade and extending the benefit belatedly would be in conflict of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(iii). On perusal of materials available on record, we are of the view that there is absolutely no infirmity in the rejection order passed by the respondents dated 06.07.2012 and the impugned order passed in W.P. (S) No. 4333 of 2013 dated 08.07.2014 is absolutely legal and justified warranting no interference by this Court as the delay is solely attributable to the appellant."

In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal. No error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the W.P. (S) No. 4333 of 2013 vide order dated 8th July, 2014. There being no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.