Umesh Paswan vs Coal India Limited & Ors

The Court: The petitioner's father was an employee of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. He died in harness in the year 1990. The petitioner's mother made an application to the authorities to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner's elder brother. Such application was favourably considered and the petitioner's brother's case was recommended for compassionate appointment. However, before things could proceed further, the petitioner's brother died in 2009. Hence, he did not have the opportunity of joining the company.

Thereafter in January, 2010, the petitioner's mother made an application to the authorities for giving appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis. Such application was rejected by an order dated 6th December, 2010. This order of rejection is under challenge in the present writ application.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that as on the date of death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was a little more than seven years old. Hence, he could not have been granted compassionate appointment since Section 40 of the Mines Act, 1952 provides that no person below 18 years of age shall be allowed to work in any mine or part thereof.

As on the date of the petitioner's mother's application for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner, he was, no doubt, more than 18 years old. However, 20 years had elapsed between 1990 when the petitioner's father died and 2010 when the application was made for granting appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is to be given to a family member of a deceased to enable the family to tide over immediate financial crisis where the deceased was the sole bread earner.

Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies on the National Coal Wage Agreement, 1996 and submits that as per the provisions thereof, the petitioner's name should have been kept in live roster till he attained the age of majority and thereafter he should have been given appointment on compassionate basis. This argument cannot be accepted. The petitioner's father died in 1990 when the 1996 agreement was not in existence. The said agreement cannot be given retrospective effect as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Eastern Coalfield Ltd. vs. Pradhan Munda & Anr. (APO No.41 of 2011) on 12th August, 2013.

Mr. Agarwal also relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sujit Kora vs. Coal India Ltd. & Ors. [2002(2) CHN 557]. In the said decision it was observed that because of his tender age, the petitioner could wait for a reasonable length of time before enforcing his right to get compassionate appointment under the National Coal Wage Agreement. The right to obtain employment did not become weaker or evaporate with the passage of years, just as the right to come into possession of a deceased's property does not become weaker or evaporate in the case of a minor heir. This decision was considered by the later Division Bench decision referred to above and it was observed that compassionate appointment cannot be equated with the right to hold property. The office is not a hereditary one.

In any event because of the long lapse of time between the death of the petitioner's father and the date when application was made for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the respondent authorities were not unjustified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. It is established law that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time.

For the reasons aforestated, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned.

WP No. 685 of 2012 is dismissed without any order as to costs.