MANJU DEVI Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal, challenging the order dated 13.2.2013 passed in W.P. (S) No. 7670 of 2006, in and by which the learned Single Judge refused to issue direction upon the respondents-B.C.C.L. to consider the case of the appellant's son for compassionate appointment and directing the respondents-B.C.C.L. to consider the case of the appellant for grant of monthly subsistence allowance in terms of circulars issued under SAIL. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the deceased-employee, Om Prakash Prasad, died-in-harness on 9.4.1996 while in service. At the time of his death, his son, namely, Amit Kumar was minor. Under the SAIL terms and conditions, the appellant claimed appointment of her son on compassionate ground, which has been rejected by the respondent-B.C.C.L. vide Reference No. WM/PS (EMPLOYMENT)/2006-4269 dated 1.2.2006.

(2.) Case of the appellant is that vide letter No. 24.4.2001, she was informed by the respondent-B.C.C.L. that as per the terms of agreement reached between Union and Management, no employment will be provided to the female dependent of-the deceased who is guided under the "SAIL Terms & Conditions" and that she will be given monetary monthly subsistence allowance in lieu of employment. In pursuance thereof, according to the appellant, she filed her representation on 29.11.2001 (Annexure-3 to the memo of appeal) requesting the management to pay the subsistence allowance to her till her son attained the majority, but there was no response from the respondent-B.C.C.L. The appellant is said to have filed another representation dated 25.11.2003 (Annexure-5 to the memo of appeal) seeking compassionate appointment for her son but the same was rejected by the management vide letter No. 4269 dated 1.2.2006 (Annexure-9 to the memo of appeal). Challenging the said order, the appellant filed writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 7670 of 2006 for quashing the communication dated 1.2.2006 but the same was dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant had repeatedly made representation requesting the management to provide compassionate appointment to her son and over the years even subsistence allowance was not paid to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that since the appellant was not paid subsistence allowance over the years, under the 'SAIL Terms & Conditions' the appellant claimed compassionate appointment for her elder son, which has been rejected by letter No. 4269 dated 1.2.2006 and the learned Single Judge was not right in directing the respondents to consider the case of the appellant only for grant of monthly subsistence allowance.