- (1.) HUSBAND of the petitioner namely Etwari Bhuia was employed as Dumper Driver in Nichitpur Colliery of the BCCL; Etwari Bhuia was served with a legal notice, informing him that he would be retiring from service w.e.f. 30.06.2003 on attaining the age of sixty years.
(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY, on the intervention of the Union, a Settlement dated 27.11.2003 arrived at. As per the Settlement (Annexure 5) dated 27.11.2003, it was agreed that date of birth of the husband of the petitioner shall be 10.10.1946 as per the Medical Board opinion and he will be allowed to resume duty, subject to the condition that he will not be paid wages for the period he remained idle. Meanwhile, the husband of the petitioner has expired on 29.12.2003. Petitioner, being widow of the deceased, has applied for the compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment was refused on the ground that on 29.12.2003, husband of the petitioner was not allowed to resume duty pursuant to Annexure 5, awaiting the approval from the competent authority. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Respondents has vehemently argued that it is true that settlement was arrived at in between the parties to the effect that date of birth of the husband of the petitioner, as per the Medical Board opinion, shall be recorded as 10.10.1946 and he was to be allowed to resume duty. However, awaiting the decision of the competent authority, he was not given joining. Learned counsel for the Respondents, in view of the above facts, contends that since husband of the petitioner was not on duty on 29.12.2003, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Undisputedly, settlement was arrived at between the parties on 27.11.2003 (Annexure 5). Undisputedly, as per the settlement, husband of the petitioner was to be allowed to resume duty. Settlement deed nowhere reads that he would be allowed to resume duty after getting approval from the competent authority. As per Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, settlement arrived at between the employer and employee has binding effect. Moreover, as per the Settlement, husband of the petitioner was to retire on reaching the age of superannuation in the year 2006, considering his date of birth as 10.10.1946. Therefore, for all practical purposes, petitioner shall be presumed on continuous duty on 29.12.2003.
(3.) IN the firm opinion of this Court, rejection of the application seeking compassionate appointment on hyper technical ground is totally unjustified and seems to be arbitrary, hence is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, impugned order dated 17.07.2005 (Annexure 9) is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to take fresh decision on the application of the petitioner within sixty days in accordance with law.;