Compassionate Appointment Can Only Be Claimed in Accordance with the Existing Policy And Not As A Matter Of Right: Bombay HC

Background of Facts

Sau. Asha's (Petitioner) husband, Shri Haridas Katwale, was employed as a pump operator with M/s Wester Coalfields Ltd. (Respondent). Shri Haridas Katwale has been continuously absent from duty since 10.009.2012 and consequently his services were terminated on 18.10.2014 due to absenteeism. His absence from duty led to a civil court declaring his civil death on 06.12.2022. Following the declaration of civil death, the Petitioner's sought compassionate appointment for the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 who were the legal heirs of the deceased.

The Petitioner argued that the termination of Shri Haridas Katwale's services based on absenteeism, was without merit in light of the declaration of civil death. Further they contended that based on similar cases and a determination by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour courts (CGIT), the legal heirs were entitled to compassionate appointment.

The Respondent contended, inter alia, that the order of termination of Shri Haridas Katwale's services was a consequence of an enquiry and cannot be questioned based on the declaration of civil death. Further, there is no policy that permits the legal heirs of the terminated employee to seek employment on compassionate grounds. The Respondent also argued against the Petitioner's contention that the termination was without merit as Shri Haridas Katwale's was continuously absent from duty.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that the termination of Shri Haridas Katwale's services was due to absenteeism, as he had been continuously absent from duty and that termination on grounds of absenteeism is permissible under the law. Further, the court examined the policy dated 09.12.2013 which was applicable at the time of termination and found that it did not provide for compassionate appointment of the legal heirs of terminated employees. Additionally, the policy explicitly stated that employment of dependents of missing employees should not be considered. Moreover, the court emphasized that compassionate appointment can only be claimed in accordance with the existing policy and not as a matter of right.

With the aforementioned observations, the court dismissed the petition.

Case: Sau. Asha wd/o Haridas Katwale & Ors. v. The Manager (Mines), M/s Wester Coalfields Ltd. Bhadrawati & Ors

Case No. W.P. No. 7361/2023

Counsels for the Petitioner: Shri S.S. Sohoni

Counsel for the Respondent: Shri N.G. Moharir