KUMARI ASHA CHAUHAN Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:-

(2.) The mother-in-law of the petitioner, namely, Kaushalya Kamin was working as Lady Security Guard at Tapin North Colliery, Hazaribagh Area of C.C.L. who died on 106.2001. Soon after the death of her mother-in-law , the husband of the petitioner namely Satyendra Kumar applied for appointment in place of his mother on compassionate ground but the same was rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 16.06.2002 on the ground of double employment stating therein that no employment can be accorded to the applicant as his father is already in service of CCL at Rajrappa project and therefore such claim in place of mother is not tenable under clause 9.3. of the National Coal Wage Agreement VI. The husband of the petitioner also died on 25.04.2003 leaving behind a daughter on the sole responsibility of the petitioner with no one to care for them. The father in law of the petitioner although in service of CCL, Rajrappa did not take care of the petitioner and her daughter and she was constrained to move to her father's place. After the death of the husband, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in place of her mother in law on 04.02008 under clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA (IV) but no heed was paid. On several occasions, the petitioner represented before the respondents for considering her for employment on compassionate ground but the same went in vain as it was never considered. The father of the petitioner also got superannuated on 2008 and since then it became difficult for him to maintain the petitioner and her daughter. The petitioner did not get any financial support from her father in law too and he also retired on 31.05.2008 from his services and never took care of the petitioner and her daughter. The petitioner came across an article in connection with employment in CCL published in the local newspaper, The said article stated that the applications for employment on compassionate ground which were initially denied on the ground of double employment between the period, 1999 to September, 2007 shall be taken into consideration by the CCL authorities. Pursuant to the publication of the said article, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground in place of her mother-in-law, stating all the above mentioned facts but no heed was paid.

(3.) It is the case of petitioner that time and again the petitioner represented before the authorities of CCL for considering her case and also represented before the respondent no.2 for the same on 30.08.2011 along with requisite documents. After several representations have been made by the petitioner for several years, finally she was considered for employment and was asked by respondent no.6 vide letter dated 14.02.2012 to submit relevant documents so that her case for appointment on compassionate ground can be considered. In pursuance to letter dated 14.02.2012 the petitioner submitted all the relevant documents as required vide letter dated 20.02.2012 to the respondent. When no intimation was made from the office of the Project Officer, the petitioner thereafter again represented before the respondent no.2 for considering her appointment in place of her mother in law and in view of the article published in the newspaper vide letter dated 18.06.2012.