ARUN BAURI Vs. CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant seeks appointment on compassionate ground in terms of Clause 9 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VII (NCWA-VII). His mother had passed away while in service of Central Coalfields Limited (C.C.L.) on 6th January, 2006, as recorded in the judgment of the learned First Court. The appellant-writ petitioner had made a representation praying for appointment on compassionate ground. As such representation did not yield any result, he had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered as W.P.(S) No. 2597 of 201 That writ petition was disposed of, it is submitted by learned counsel for the parties, with a direction that an officer of the Coal Company was to consider the representation of the writ petitioner to be filed and thereafter pass a reasoned order. His plea for compassionate appointment was ultimately rejected. The second writ petition of the appellant-writ petitioner in which prayer was made for invalidation of the order of rejection coupled with plea for his appointment on compassionate ground was also rejected primarily on the ground of delay. The appellant has come up in appeal assailing the order of rejection passed by the learned Single Judge on 17th February, 2017.

(2.) The provision for compassionate appointment, as we have already indicated, is contained in Clause 9.3 of the N.C.W.A.-VII. The said clause stipulates :-

(3.) The respondent Coal Company resists this appeal on an additional ground apart from delay. Their submission is that at the time of death of the mother of the appellant, father of the appellant was also serving the Coal Company. He superannuated in the year 2014. Learned counsel for the C.C.L. has submitted that as a policy the Coal Company does not indulge in such practice which they term as "double employment". In the relevant clauses of the N.C.W.A., which we have quoted in the preceding paragraph of this judgment, there is no specific provision relating to "double employment". However, the provision for compassionate appointment is preserved for dependants. The term dependant has been defined in Clause 9.3, which is to include spouse, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. That is the list of relatives in the first line of dependants. It is also specified that if no such direct dependant is available for employment, then next degree relatives specified in the same clause could qualify for such appointment in the event they are wholly dependant on the earnings of the deceased. The other aspect which we would have to address for adjudication of this appeal is the test to be applied for determining whether a person would come within the ambit of expression "dependant", if such person comes within the list of relatives specified in that clause. The NCWA stipulates dependants on the basis of their relationship with the deceased employee. But no provision is there on financial status of the claimant, except that only one dependant would have the benefit of employment through this route. In our opinion, to be eligible for appointment on compassionate ground, one has to be a "dependant" of the deceased employee. The term dependant would have to be construed in its natural meaning to imply that the specified person relied on the deceased for his or her maintenance at the time of death of the deceased or permanent incapacity. This construction in our opinion would be suitable in the context of this case, as there may be other situations where the statute might prescribe a specific meaning to this term. In the case of the appellant his father was working at the time of death of his mother and his father continued to serve the Coal Company for further period of eight years. As his father was engaged in service, we are unable to accept the submission of the appellant that the son was independent of the father but dependant only on the mother.