Case Name: Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. Parden Oraon [Civil Appeal No. 897 of 2021]
Excerpt
The Supreme Court of India in a judgement on Friday (April 9, 2021) observed that compassionate employment was not a vested right that could be exercised at any time in future and therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period.
Facts of the Case
In the present case, the husband of the respondent was an operator (helper category) at Gidi Washery and was missing from October 2002. It was informed to the police as well as to the Regional office of Gidi Washery. At this, Appellant no. 1 issued a charge-sheet against the husband of the Respondent on the grounds of desertion of duty from October 1, 2002, and an inquiry was conducted in which the Respondent took part on behalf of her husband according to which the Appellant terminated the services of the Respondent’s husband with effect from September 21, 2004.
Consequently, a suit was filed by the Respondent in the Court of Additional Munsif for seeking a declaration of civil death of her missing husband which was decreed in the year 2012. Later the Respondent in the year 2013 made the representation in the court as well as requested Appellant no. 1 seeking compassionate appointment of her son but both were rejected. The Appellant rejected the request because the Respondent’s husband was already dismissed from the job.
As a result, the rejection order was challenged before the High Court by a writ petition. The High Court in its judgement quashed the termination of service of the Respondent’s husband as it could not be sustained in the eye of law. It also quashed the rejection of the claim of compassionate appointment of Respondent’s son and directed Appellant no. 1 to consider the claim of compassionate appointment per the law. Then also, the Appellant rejected the claim of appointment via order dates 3.8.2016 on the basis that there was no merit and various other reasons. The matter again went to appeal to the division bench of the High Court which quashed the order of 3.8.2016 and upheld the judgement of a single bench of the High Court by giving various reasons and consequently, the Appellant came to the Supreme Court.
Pleadings before the Court
It was submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the Appellant that the families and loved ones of a deceased employee in harness had no right to compassionate appointment, and one must request a compassionate appointment in compliance with the applicable laws, laws, and systems. It was further argued that since 2002, the Respondent’s husband has been missing. In 2009, the Respondent filed a lawsuit demanding a declaration of her husband’s civil death. In 2013, the appeal for a compassionate appointment came far later. The intention of providing a compassionate appointment due to the death of the breadwinner was not served due to the delay in filing a claim for a compassionate appointment.
On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent that a family member of an employee who died in a civil accident was not ineligible for compassionate appointment, according to the National Coal Wage Agreement. No rule said the Respondent’s son can’t get a compassionate appointment because his mother works for the business. It was further submitted that the High Court overturned her husband’s termination of services order, which has now become final. In either case, the Respondent retired from the military in 2018, and her son required to work to support his family.
Court’s Observation
The bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices L.Nageshwar Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat observed that the entire point of granting compassionate appointment was to help the family get through the unexpected tragedy that happens when the main breadwinner dies. The simple death of a harness employee did not entitle his family to such a source of income. The authority in question must assess the deceased’s family’s financial situation, and if it was satisfied that the family will be unable to meet the crisis, the job must be given to a qualified family member.
It was further observed that after a fair amount of time has passed, compassionate employment cannot be granted because recognition of such employment was not a vested right that could be exercised at any time in the future.
Court’s Judgement
The Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the High Court and said that since the aim of compassionate appointment was to provide urgent assistance to the family of a deceased employee, the Respondent’s son was not eligible for compassionate appointment after his father has been missing for a long time.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
