S.N.PATHAK,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioners have approached this Court with a common prayer for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of Dying in Harness Scheme in the Damodar Valley Corporation (for short "DVC"). Factual Matrix 2.1 The petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased, who were the employees of DVC. The father of the petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 5608 of 2016 died-in-hamess on 14.11.1994, whereas most of the employees died mostly during the period 1993, 1994, 1996, 2002, 2011 and 2012. A chart showing the date of death of individual employees, date of making applications for compassionate appointments by the individual writ petitioners, their relationship with the deceased employees, is reproduced herein below for easy reference:- JUDGEMENT_178_LAWS(JHAR)8_2017.html
(3.) Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in SI. No. 1 to 25, strenuously urges that respondent-DVC has illegally and arbitrarily rejected the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground. The rejection order is not at all tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submits that any appointment on compassionate ground has to be done as per the Scheme. In the instant case, the Scheme floated by the DVC has not been followed in toto. As per the Scheme, a review has to be done regarding appointment on compassionate ground. It has not been brought on record at any point of time that the said Scheme has ever been reviewed. Learned counsel submits that there cannot be any classification regarding death. Death is death and in any type of death, which occurred in harness, the respondents are duty bound to give employment to dependents of the deceased employee, if the Scheme provides for appointment/employment on account of death-in-harness. To buttress his argument, learned counsel relied on the following judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) Balbir Kaur and Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. [(2000)6 SCC 493]; (ii) Canara Bank and Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar [(2015)7 SCC 412] [: 2015(3) JLJR (SC)21]; (iii) Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Anr. [(2016)3 SCC 643], ;