RAMPYARIBAI VANSH Vs. WESTERN COALFIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was working as an 'aaya' in Area Hospital, Pathakheda run by the Western Coalfields Limited suffered from various ailment as a consequence of which in the year 1997 she applied for retirement on medical ground. Her prayer was conceded to and she was extended the benefit of retirement on medical ground with effect from 29-8-1997. At the time of retirement she applied for compassionate appointment in the Western Coalfields Limited in respect of her son, Dwarka Prasad, who is a physically handicapped, as one of his legs has been amputated after accident. It is setforth that the said Dwarka Prasad is handicapped by 60% and he is totally dependant on the petitioner.

(2.) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner as per the Sixth National Coal Wage Agreement that had come into effect from 1-7-1996 one of the dependants of an employee of the Company is entitled for compassionate appointment, keeping in view the conception of social security. A reference has been made to Chapter IX of the Agreement to highlight how a dependant is entitled to be put in the category. It is asserted in Clause 9. 4. 0 the criteria for grant of compassionate appointment have been prescribed and as per the said criteria an employee who has been medically boarded out, would appear before the Medical Board and if there is a certificate he had lost his employment due to ailment or accident, dependant will be extended the benefit, if the employee has not crossed the age of 58 years. It is put forth that the petitioner was 55 years of age and, therefore, her dependant/son is entitled to get compassionate appointment. In view of the aforesaid, she applied on 5-9-1997 as per Annexure P-4. Her son had also applied separately as per Annexure P-5. Though the said Dwarka Prasad was entitled for appointment on compassionate ground but the respondents refused to extend the said benefit to him on the foundation that he was more than 35 years of age and was physically handicapped. A direction was given to the petitioner to apply for compassionate appointment for her second son, Santosh Kumar. At that juncture, the petitioner again submitted an application to the respondents and put forth that her two sons had already been engaged in Government service and they were living separately and they are not dependant on her but Dwarka Prasad, the handicapped son, is dependant on her and, therefore, the appointment should be given to him alone. The issue relating to the appointment of the petitioner's son was also taken up by the Union which submitted a memorandum to the employer and on the basis of which a joint meeting of the representatives of the Management and of the Union was held on 21-11-2001 in which the Management expressed its inability to reconsider the earlier decision stating that Dwarka Prasad could not be extended the benefit of compassionate appointment. It is urged in the petition that denial of benefit by the employer to Dwarka Prasad is totally illegal and unjust. It is contended that when the petitioner retired she was 55 years of age and Dwarka Prasad was more than 34 years of age but had not crossed 35 and, therefore, there was no justification to deny the benefit. In this backdrop a prayer has been made to issue a mandamus to the respondents to appoint son of the petitioner, Dwarka Prasad, on compassionate basis.

(3.) A return has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that the scheme which has been formulated for compassionate appointment is Annexure P-1. It is also averred in the return that the son of the petitioner had crossed more than 35 years and he is not physically fit to perform any job in the mines. Keeping the aforesaid facet in view the prayer for compassionate appointment was refused. It is asserted that the petitioner's son can not be engaged in the mine and allowing a physically handicapped person functioning in the mine would put lives of other workers into danger. It is the stand of the respondent the requirement of manpower is only for protection purpose and hence, there is no scope for adjusting the petitioner's son on any surface job as there is already surplus job.