{"id":307048,"date":"2023-11-13T11:00:01","date_gmt":"2023-11-13T05:30:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=307048"},"modified":"2023-11-13T10:19:37","modified_gmt":"2023-11-13T04:49:37","slug":"calcutta-high-court-upheld-the-rejection-of-compassionate-appointment-scc-blog-legal-research-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/13\/calcutta-high-court-upheld-the-rejection-of-compassionate-appointment-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/","title":{"rendered":"‘Compassionate appointment not vested\/hereditary right’, Calcutta High Court upholds rejection of compassionate appointment"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Calcutta High Court:<\/span> While determining the maintainability of the writ petition, preferred by the petitioners seeking compassionate appointment, without making trade unions as the respondent party, a single-judge bench comprising of Shekhar B. Saraf,* J.<\/span>, denied compassionate appointment to the petitioners due to a lack of financial dependency. The Court stated that providing false information and filing delayed applications further impact petitioner’s credibility. The Court also dismisses claims of non-maintainability, affirming the applicability of NCWA and the ‘State Authority’ status of CIL and ECL.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/p>\n

The respondent, Coal India Ltd. is a Government of India undertaking, and Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) is its subsidiary. An employee of ECL passed away on 26-05-2010, leaving behind petitioner 1 (deceased employee’s wife), petitioner 2 (son-in-law), petitioner 3 (married daughter) and a son. The wife initially applied for compassionate appointment for son-in-law, which was rejected by ECL on the grounds of exceeding the age limit. Subsequent applications for compassionate appointment by the wife and son-in-law were also rejected, suggesting they apply for monetary compensation instead.<\/p>\n

The wife disputed the age allegations and submitted various documents indicating different ages for herself and her children. Petitioner 1’s son issued a no-objection certificate stating his disinterest in compassionate appointment and suggested it be given to petitioner 1. Further applications for compassionate appointment for the son-in-law were rejected, citing the existence of a direct dependent (the son) as the reason.<\/p>\n

The wife subsequently requested a compassionate appointment for her married daughter, which was denied, citing certain prohibitions under the Mines Act and Mines Rule, as well as the absence of a provision for employment of a married daughter in NCWA-VI.<\/p>\n

A writ petition was filed which resulted in an order instructing the Chairman, Coal India Ltd. to consider pertinent issues. The respondent and ECL filed review applications against this order, leading to the consideration of the petitioners’ claim by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, ECL. The Director (Personnel), ECL eventually rejected the petitioners’ claim, citing various reasons, including age discrepancies, the presence of a direct dependent (the son), and voter cards indicating that son-in-law and daughter did not reside with the deceased. The petitioners filed a fresh appeal to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, ECL, which went unanswered, leading to the current writ petition.<\/p>\n

Petitioners’ Contentions<\/p>\n

The petitioners contended that the impugned order considered son-in-law but neglected to address the eligibility of the married daughter, despite the prior court order instructing such consideration. It was contended that the son-in-law and daughter are still unemployed and reside with their mother. Both places are within the same constituency, and the son-in-law occasionally resides with his mother in the parental home.<\/p>\n

The petitioners contended that the son-in-law is a dependent and has no income except LIC Commission and the son-in-law’s CMS Club Membership does not necessarily indicate significant income, and the family property cannot be considered income. It was contended that the age discrepancies claimed by the respondents were not admitted by the petitioners, and the respondents’ failure to address these discrepancies earlier is questionable.<\/p>\n

It was contended that the term ‘unmarried’ preceding ‘daughter’ in Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-VI is unconstitutional and violates Article 14<\/a> and 15<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>, as per precedents in other High Courts and the Supreme Court. Moreover, various constitutional articles and conventions support equal employment opportunities for married daughters and precedents in other cases suggest that a son-in-law can be considered a dependent for compassionate appointment.<\/p>\n

It was contended that the Compassionate appointment is not a matter of recruitment but is governed by a scheme agreed to by the parties in NCWA and is a matter of right under the ‘die-in-harness’ category.<\/p>\n

Respondents’ Contentions<\/p>\n

The respondents contended that the petitioners failed to include trade unions, who are parties to the NCWA, as respondents, making the writ petition non-maintainable. It was contended that the wife of the deceased employee provided inconsistent information about her age, including discrepancies in various certificates and documents and the no-objection certificate from the son of the deceased employee only mentioned compassionate appointment for the deceased employee’s wife and not for the son-in-law and married daughter. Moreover, the age limits in NCWA-VI were correctly applied by the respondent authority, and deceased employee’s wife was advised to apply for Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation (MMCC) instead. The respondents further contended that compassionate appointment is not an absolute right, and it cannot be claimed after a lapse of 12 years.<\/p>\n

Moot Point<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Whether compassionate appointment a vested right?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Whether the distinction between ‘married’ and ‘unmarried’ daughter as per Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-VI is ultra vires and is in violation of Article 14<\/a> and 15<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Whether direct dependents must also show dependency under Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-VI?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  4. \n

    Whether petitioners 2 and 3 can be considered for compassionate appointment?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Court’s Assessment<\/p>\n