GITA Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL UNITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. This is the second round of litigation for seeking compassionate appointment by the petitioner as her claim has been rejected by the impugned order dated 21/30.12.2013 (Annexure-2) passed by the Project Officer, Gondudih Colliery, BCCL (Respondent No. 3). Rejection has been made primarily on the ground that the mother-in-law of the petitioner Sabitri Bai refused to give no objection and made representation that the petitioner was suspected to be involved in the murder of his son and that the petitioner had entered into marriage with another person after the death of her son.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner answers each of these contentions while submitting that in the first place, the FIR being Kenduadih P.S. Case No. 90/2006 registered under Section 302/34 IPC on account of death of her husband, was against unknown and not only that, after the investigation, police submitted final form in the matter on 30.4.2007 and no material *was found against the petitioner. The final form has been accepted by the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad vide order dated 13.6.2008, a xerox copy of certified copy of the order has also been produced in support of the statements made at para-17 of the writ petition. The other fact which has also been taken note of in the previous judgment dated 22.10.2013 passed in WPS No. 7071/2012 in the petitioner's case is that the petitioner being the nominee as mentioned in Form-F under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and having made a claim for payment of admissible Gratuity of the deceased employee, has been granted Gratuity dues by the Controlling Authority under the Act of 1972 by order dated 6.1.2009 (Annexure-3). It is further stated that the employee has left two minor sons out of the wedlock with the petitioner who are dependent upon her and facing hardship on account of loss of breadearner and there is no source of livelihood. Therefore, grounds of rejection are wholly untenable in law as well as on facts and the lady mother-in-law has not come forward to substantiate her allegation. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the mother-in-law Sabitri Bai was herself employee of the BCCL and she took voluntary retirement and is enjoying admissible post retiral benefits; in that sense, she is not even dependent of the deceased.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent BCCL has defended the impugned order on the ground that in matter relating to compassionate appointment, no objection on an affidavit from each of the dependent of the deceased employee is mandatory requirement to consider the cases of compassionate appointment of any such dependent. He submits that the impugned order clearly reflects objection of mother-in-law Sabitri Bai. Therefore, claim of the petitioner is not worthy of being allowed and it has been refused by a well reasoned order with full application of mind to relevant facts.