caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Central Coalfields Limited vs Parden Oraon on 9 April, 2021Author: L. Nageswara Rao
Bench: [ S ], [ L ]
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.897 of 2021
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10514 of 2020)
Central Coalfields Limited
Through its Chairman and
Managing Director & Ors. …. Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Parden Oraon …. Respondent (s)
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. The respondent requested the appellants to appoint her
son in the place of his father who was missing since 2002 which
was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent filed a writ
petition in the High Court of Jharkhand. The writ petition was
allowed and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by
the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence this appeal.
2. The husband of the respondent was an Operator, Helper
Category (Category II) at Gidi Washery. The Respondent
informed the officer in-charge of Bhurkunda Thana, Hazaribagh
that her husband was missing since 03.10.2002. A copy of the
1 | Page
said information was communicated to the Regional Officer of
the Gidi Washery. A charge-sheet was issued by Appellant No. 1
to the Respondent’s husband for desertion of duty since
01.10.2002 and an inquiry was conducted in which the
Respondent participated on behalf of her husband. On the basis
of Inquiry Officer’s report, the Appellant No. 1 terminated the
services of the Respondent’s husband with effect from
21.09.2004.
3. The Respondent filed a suit in the Court of the Additional
Munsif, Hazaribagh seeking a declaration of civil death of her
missing husband. The said suit was decreed with effect from the
date of filing of the suit i.e. 23.12.2009 by a judgment dated
13.07.2012. The Respondent made a representation on
17.01.2013 seeking compassionate appointment for her son
which was rejected on 03.05.2013. The request for
compassionate appointment was rejected by Appellant No. 1 on
the ground that the Respondent’s husband was already
dismissed from service and therefore, the request for
compassionate appointment could not be entertained.
4. Challenging the rejection of the request for compassionate
appointment of her son, the Respondent filed a writ petition
before the High Court which was allowed by a judgment dated
03.08.2015. The High Court held that the proceedings leading to
2 | Page
the termination of the Respondent’s husband from service
cannot be sustained in the eye of law. On the said basis, the
order of termination of Respondent’s husband from service was
quashed. The rejection of the claim of compassionate
appointment of her son was also quashed and the first appellant
was directed to consider the claim of compassionate
appointment of the Respondent’s son in accordance with law. By
an order dated 03.08.2016 the first Appellant decided that there
was no merit in the request for appointment of Respondent’s
son. It was observed in the order of rejection dated 03.08.2016
that the Respondent was in employment and both her sons were
shown as her dependents. It was further noted that the
Respondent’s husband was missing since 03.10.2002 and the
Respondent’s son was not entitled to seek compassionate
appointment which is normally provided as a succour to the
family of a deceased employee in harness. Another reason given
for rejecting the request for compassionate appointment was
that a decision was taken in the meeting of Directors (Personnel)
on 19.10.2013 that compassionate appointment cannot be
provided to the dependents of missing employees (Deemed
death).
5. The High Court through its judgment dated 16.08.2018 set
aside the order dated 03.08.2016 by holding that the note of
3 | Page
discussions of the Directors meet held at Jaipur cannot be
considered as policy decision and it cannot be the basis for
rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment. The High
Court was of the view that the parties are bound by the National
Coal Wage Agreement. In respect of the Respondent’s
employment being the reason for rejection of request for
compassionate appointment, the High Court observed that there
is no policy decision of the appellant company not to offer
compassionate appointment in cases of double employment. As
the order of termination of services of Respondent’s husband
was quashed by the High Court, Respondent’s son was held to be
entitled for appointment. The Division Bench of the High Court
dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. The National Coal
Wage Agreement was examined in detail by the Division Bench
to come to a conclusion that civil death of employee cannot be a
disqualification for compassionate appointment of the member
of his family. The contention of the Appellant that the decision
was taken by the Directors (Personnel) not to provide
employment to the children of employees who have suffered civil
death was not accepted by the Division Bench as it could not be
termed as a policy decision. The High Court observed that
there is no delay in seeking compassionate appointment after
having obtained a decree from the Civil Court declaring the
4 | Page
Respondent’s husband to have suffered civil death. The Division
Bench upheld the finding of the Single Judge of the High Court
that there is no clause in the National Coal Wage Agreement
which prevents a claim for compassionate appointment on the
ground that another member of the family is in service.
6. The contention of the Appellant is that there is no right for
compassionate appointment available to the surviving family
members of the deceased employee in harness and one must
seek appointment on compassionate basis in accordance with
the relevant rules, regulations and schemes. It was submitted on
behalf of the Appellants that the Respondent’s husband was
missing since 2002. The suit filed by the Respondent seeking for
declaration of civil death of her husband was in 2009. The
request for compassionate appointment was made much later in
2013. In view of the delay in making a claim for compassionate
appointment, the very purpose of providing compassionate
appointment owing to the death of the breadwinner is not
served. In addition, the Respondent was in service of the
Appellant. It was also argued that though the National Coal Wage
Agreement does not contain any clause relating to the
dependents of the employee who suffered civil death to be
ineligible for compassionate appointment, the decision taken by
5 | Page
the Directors (Personnel) in 2013 should be treated as a policy
decision governing compassionate appointment.
7. On behalf of the Respondent, it was submitted that there is
no provision in the National Coal Wage Agreement that a family
member of an employee who suffered civil death is not eligible
for compassionate appointment. There is also no provision that
the Respondent’s son cannot be given compassionate
appointment on the ground that she is working in the company.
The Respondent submitted that she was diligent in participating
in the departmental inquiry initiated against her husband and in
filing the civil suit for declaration of civil death of her husband
immediately on completion of 7 years from 2002. According to
the Respondent, the order of termination of services of her
husband was set aside by the High Court which has become
final. In any event, the respondent has retired from service in
2018 and her son needs the employment to take care of his
family.
8. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment
is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises
due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an
employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of
livelihood. The authority concerned has to examine the financial
condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is
6 | Page
satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will
not be able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the
eligible member of the family 1. It was further asseverated in the
said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be
granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration
of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised
at any time in the future. It was further held that the object of
compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over
the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole
breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or
offered after a signficant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
9. We are in agreement with the High Court that the reasons
given by the employer for denying compassionate appointment
to the Respondent’s son are not justified. There is no bar in the
National Coal Wage Agreement for appointment of the son of an
employee who has suffered civil death. In addition, merely
because the respondent is working, her son cannot be denied
compassionate appointment as per the relevant clauses of the
National Coal Wage Agreement. However, the Respondent’s
husband is missing since 2002. Two sons of the Respondent who
are the dependents of her husband as per the records, are also
shown as dependents of the Respondent. It cannot be said that
1 Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138
7 | Page
there was any financial crisis created immediately after
Respondent’s husband went missing in view of the employment
of the Respondent. Though the reasons given by the employer
to deny the relief sought by the Respondent are not sustainable,
we are convinced that the Respondent’s son cannot be given
compassionate appointment at this point of time. The
application for compassionate appointment of the son was filed
by the Respondent in the year 2013 which is more than 10 years
after the Respondent’s husband had gone missing. As the object
of compassionate appointment is for providing immediate
succour to the family of a deceased employee, the Respondent’s
son is not entitled for compassionate appointment after the
passage of a long period of time since his father has gone
missing.
10. For the aforementioned reasons, we allow the appeal and
set aside the judgment of the High Court.
……………………………….J.
[ L. NAGESWARA RAO ]
……………………………….J.
[ S. RAVINDRA BHAT ]
New Delhi,
April 9, 2021.
8 | Page
Comments