SHANTI KUMARI Vs. BHARAT COOKING COAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order contained in letter vide Ref. No. 153/2018 dated 13/30.06.2018 (Annexure-6) issued by the respondent No.3, whereby and whereunder, the claim of the petitioner to provide her compassionate appointment has been rejected. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner in accordance with the provision made under Clause 9.4.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement.

(2.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the father of the petitioner was permanent employee and was posted as Pump Operator at Ramkanali Colliery under the respondents and died in harness on 11.01.2015. At the time of death, the petitioner and her sister were minor and as such, mother of the petitioner, wife of deceased employee had submitted her representation before the concerned respondent for appointment of her daughter on compassionate ground. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 07.09.2015 directed the mother of the petitioner to procure a certificate from the Block Development Officer to the effect that her daughter namely Shanti Kumari, petitioner is unmarried for the purpose of consideration of her case for compassionate appointment. Further, respondent No.3 vide letter dated 06.01.2016 informed the mother of the petitioner that as the age of the petitioner at the time of death of her father was 15 years 8 months and 24 days, there is no provision to keep a female minor dependant on live roster. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 27.12.2017, petitioner submitted a representation and stated that the ground of rejection of her claim for compassionate appointment by respondents is illegal and arbitrary in view of the fact that she had applied for compassionate appointment on 01.06.2015 and she had already attained majority on 02.05.2017 and as such, she requested the respondents to consider her case for providing compassionate appointment. Subsequently, the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 13.06.2018, rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that petitioner was fully dependent upon the deceased father, who was admittedly an employee of BCCL and died in harness. Learned counsel further submits that unmarried daughter also comes within the definition of the dependent and compassionate appointment has to be provided to unmarried daughter as per the provision of para 9.4.0 of NCWA, and as such, the action of the respondents, rejecting the claim of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and not tenable in the eyes of law. He further submits that the action on part of the respondent in rejecting her claim on the ground of gender is against the provision of Constitution of India. Learned counsel further argues that in terms of the NCWA, a male dependant who has not attained the age of 18 years is kept in a live roster till he attains majority but there has been apparent discrimination in the case of female dependants as would be evident from the case at hand. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on a reported judgment of this Court in case of Radha Munda Vs. Director Personnel, Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2015 (3) JLJR 319 and argues that in view of the judgment/order of this Court, the impugned letter dated 13.06.2018, denying the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner, who is female, is fit to be quashed and set aside Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that as per the service excerpts of the deceased employee, the name of the petitioner did not find place in the list of dependents and after the death of the deceased employee, the family certificate was submitted by the petitioner in which she is shown as dependent along with her sister and mother. Learned counsel further submits that earlier the mother of the petitioner requested for compassionate appointment to petitioner and same was rejected vide letter dated 06.01.2016 on the ground that petitioner is only 15 years 8 months and 24 days and she is minor and there is no provision to keep the name of female dependant in live roster, which is not under challenge and as such, petitioner is misleading the Court.