RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order contained in letter dated 25th May 2010 issued by the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Bastakola area, on the sole ground that the petitioner does not fall in the category of dependent of the deceased employee and is not covered by the Social Security Scheme whereunder, employment to a dependent of a worker/employee who dies in harness, is given.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that under Claus 9.3.2., provisions have been made for employment to one dependent of the worker who dies while in service. Clause 9.3.3 defines 'dependent'. The definition of dependent is not exhaustive, therefore expansive meaning of the 'dependent' could be given as the petitioner was fully dependent upon the deceased employee being his nephew after the death of his natural father. It is further submitted that the petitioner was also nominated by the deceased as his nominee for the purpose of availing the benefits of gratuity of the deceased employee. He submits that the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in his order dated 21st February 2012 (Annexure-4) has therefore directed the respondents to make payment of the total gratuity amount due to the deceased employee in favour of the petitioner. In such circumstances, respondents should have considered the case of the petitioner and grant him compassionate appointment as he was facing undue hardship and starvation after the death of the sole bread earner of the family.

(3.) Respondents have however contested the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents, by harping upon the definition contained in Clause-9.3.3 of NCWA Chapter-IX 'Social Security', has submitted that the definition of dependent does not extend to the nephew which the petitioner is. It is submitted that the claim for compassionate appointment is a departure from the normal rules of public employment under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India after consideration of all similarly placed eligible persons. Appointment of dependent of the deceased employee is made in order to enable him to ward off the immediate loss of the bread earner of the family and to prevent them from destitution. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the scheme which has been laid down by the employer has to be conformed to in the matter of consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. No departure thereof is warranted and neither is it advisable in view of several judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court such as, in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India & Ors, 2011 4 SCC 209], Kandarpa Sarma versus Rajeswar Das and Others and Dwarika Bhuian v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., 2011 14 SCC 752 Through Its Chairman.