In a recent judgment, the High Court of Jharkhand ruled in favor of the married daughter of a deceased employee, allowing her to file an application for compassionate appointment. The court emphasized the primary objective of compassionate appointments, which is to provide support to bereaved families, preventing them from facing destitution.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “Principles and object of compassionate appointment is to provide means of sustenance to the bereaved family on the loss of the sole bread earner, to prevent the family from vagrancy and destitution.”

“Law is settled by a long line of judicial precedents that while making compassionate appointment the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and financial condition of the dependent is to be reckoned with, before offering any such employment,” Justice Choudhary added.

As per the factual matrix of the case, the applicant, a married daughter of the deceased, who was a permanent employee of M/s BCCL, has submitted the current application seeking compassionate appointment. The management rejected her initial request, citing that she did not meet the criteria for being considered a dependent under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) provisions.

The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that, at the time of her father's demise, she was unmarried, qualifying as a dependent under Clause 9.3.3 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI. The counsel asserted that the right to appointment had arisen on the date of her father's death, and had she applied, employment would have been granted. However, she refrained from submitting her application as her brother had already applied for the position.

Additionally, it was contended that Clause 9.3.3 exhibits gender bias and is unconstitutional since it allows employment for an unmarried daughter but not for a married daughter on compassionate grounds.

The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent The representative for the respondent argued that at the time of submitting the application, the petitioner was already married. Additionally, the counsel cited a precedent in the case of The State of Maharashtra & Another Versus Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1327, wherein compassionate appointment for an unmarried daughter was refused.

Furthermore, the counsel asserted that the National Coal Wage Agreement holds legal force for both the employee and the employer.

In its judgment, the Court explicitly stated that it could not delve into the constitutionality of Clause 9.3.3 of the National Coal Wage Agreement, emphasizing that this provision pertains to employment for dependents, specifically unmarried daughters, as opposed to married daughters.

The Court further elucidated that the pivotal aspect in the current scenario is the petitioner's marital status at the time of her father's demise. Despite being unmarried then, her application for a compassionate appointment was not considered, as her brother had already applied for the same and eventually passed away before assuming the position.

The Court took note of a significant development through a supplementary affidavit, revealing that the petitioner's marital status changed after her application, as she got married before her brother's demise. Subsequently, the petitioner's husband met with a fatal accident on 01.02.2022, as evidenced by the enclosed death certificate. The Court underscored that as per Clause 9.3.3, a widowed daughter qualifies as a dependent.

The Court held, "Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. There has not been any delay on the part of the petitioner to prefer an application for compassionate appointment."

"Petitioner is directed to file a representation afresh before the competent authority bringing to the notice of competent authority regarding death of her husband during the pendency of the writ petition," the Court added.

The Court, in its concluding remarks, specified that upon submission of the representation, the competent authority must dispose of the matter within three months.

Counsel/s For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate

Counsel/s For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate

Counsel/s For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, Advocate.

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 87

Case Title: Sita Kumari vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors

Case No.: W.P.(S) No. 2178 of 2021

Click Here To Read/Download Judgement