;e'iii!'MBI ^tl IMIfl'll iljSH11!;1' Ht<^dOUf Or:JUDI<»TVI eMMATTI^!^^^^^ W.P. lto.64of2082 Petitioner Respondents Dev Narairan Versus South EastemCoatflelds Ljmited & othere slr. Postfororeleron /"May, 2007 JUDGE 3o04:2(X)7 /' .£ 1 '"^^t^'E^^^^^i ^-^' HIGHCOURTOFJUDieAtURECHHATTIS6ARH:BILASPUR SingleBench: HoR'bleShrtSaHsh K. Agnihotri, J. Wrtt Petitton N0.64 of2002 Petitioner DevNarayan.S/oLateShriMangalSai.^ed d»ut21^ears^nBai(kmt<rfVillage1<a^c^ P.S.fTahsit Sonhat, District- Koreya. .Vereus.." .:• .••:• .. , V : ^':: ,::. • • Respondente 1. South Eastem GoalfieMs Llmited, throi^hits Chaimian-cuin-MaragingDiFeetoF.HeaclOffice at S.E.C.i.. Meaaquarter, S^epatReiad, Sart@Rda,;Bilasptir. ehi^ii3snsrail(|llanagw,SouthEastom Coalflelcisit.imi^cBBaikunttipiu'Area, . BaJku»tth|»i|r,Distrk^Koreya. Su&,^eaMana>8®r,SokrthEastemC srfWds Limiied,CfiurchaGol(tery(West),P.SJTahsi( Baikuntfipur, District Koreya. 2. 3. WRITPETmONUNDERARnGI.E22«2270FTHE ©0*l'STn-Utt@(i<QiF INGilA ShriB.D.Guru.AdvQcateforttlSi^eWoner. Shri P. S. Nair, Sfinior Acivoestte witft Shrt R. K. Gupta, Advocate for the rsspondente. / ORDER {Passed amthis /^ da^ofMay.ZOO?) 1. The peSBoner, who was about 12 ysars of age, at the time of death of hfs father in an accident j.e. 7.7.1%4, hasfiled this petitionunderArticie 226027 of the Constjtutton of India seeking a direcfon to the respondents/South Eastem Coalfiefds Ltet. to appoint him on compassfonate tasis. 2. The brieffaCts.innutehelt.arethatthefattierofthepetiBoflernamelyStirt ! 1!: Mangal Sai.was wofKingas P.R^. in tte South Eastem CpsiBields^^ Chureha eolliery ^VssQ.when he died in an aeGicfent oi'l 7.7.1994; tn|t(ie said accident severat ottier labourers ha»l also died. Accoreting toifl|te i::^i^l::i:;!' peCtioner, at ^;tinre^of death (rf^is fatt^ brothers,vt^on|yalx>yt12yeafscrfdandhismother,being^^^a^ notin a positk)nt6getths(»m^ssionatsappdintment. Afterth&deattt of the fattisr of the petitioner, assuranee was given by the officers of the managementoftherNpondentSthatwhenthepetitfonerMrouldattainttie maprity.ten^lxiConsideredforeQmpassionateappomtmentin^^ his fcrther. On attaining the ^e of majonty, he fited an application for " compassionateappojntment ofr 22.92001(^nnexure P/6). The motherof the petifioneratsosubmittedanapplieation^\nnexureP/4).supportedby anaffidavit(Annexurel^thathereldersoni.e.thepefi<k>nerbegFanted compassienate appointment. The respondente failed to respond and as sutrfi, ths petitioner was madSito fite the instant peBfion on 3.1.2002 for appropriaterelie^ 3. The respondents havefiled theirretarn. It has l&een categoricaltystatsd that sincethe father of e peti^nerdied in an accktent.jn accofdance with the provisions of fte Natjonal Cpal Wage Agreement ^.CWA) the wdow of the deceased emplwse was entitted either to get compassicinate appointmsnt or to taKe moneteiy compsnsaCon. After the dsatti of the fathsr of Ihs petitioner. his mcrther submjtted an appliGation ^nnexure R/1) ttiat though according to the prowsions of N.CWA. 4 she was entitted to get comtMffisionate appointment on account of death of her husband in theaccident, but as she wasynable to pertbrm th&duBess, she requestsd for grantof pension. Pursuantto the said appljcation of the mother of the petitroner, monetaiy compensation antount for a sum| of Rs^OCXS/- per month. w.e.f. Qctober. 1994 wassancBoned vide order •Ri^" dated 23:2.1996 (Anrtexufel^, whiGh virasmcreasedtoR&4aiW-pim. The mother of e petitjoner was getHng the monetary eompensationl fill she attained 60 ^ears of age. /teeOKiing t6 the prowsions of N.O^V.A.I -the age ofthe petjtionerwas 15 ^eais, ^the fime of dea ^h^ HIU 1 ttien his name eouldtefeept ina liv®roster regBter tJU he couldattain the age of 18 years. Since tte petifioneT was below 15 years, at e time of deatti of his fattter, hisname could nof be keptinthe tiv®roster register. Thus, ttie petjtioner is not entiUed forcQmpassionate appoihtment. Gnly those dependents ofd®»as^lernpkyeesweregwenempk^'ment.who futfillectthereqyisiteeiualificafionandrequirement. ^^ • ' . • • ' . ' ••.. ."••'•':- . •-.•.' • • . . \ . . .'• \ ; 4. Leamed counsel appearing for 8ie petiGoner submitted toat fte petitioner is entitled to appoinftnent on com(»^ionate tesis. Per corttra, teamed eounsel appearjng for the respondente sybmitted that since ttie inother of the peSfioner had deelinect to teke eompas^onate appomtment and i . . . ."••••..••• prayed for grant ef pensron. monthly monetary compiensafion to the tune of Rs. 400QA- is being pakl t6 her. hkw. sfter a lapse of about 13-years, the petifoner ten<rtenti^tobeappoinN|OTc<wpas^nstoto 5. I have heard leamed counset for th^ parti^ and perused 18 pleadihgs and recordsappendetfthereto. r- '. . ''•'•'••.. -•. "'^ '' '' . • . '.'. •"••'• . ' • ' • •.': '. • '.•'•• 6. As per th&provisien of N.GWA Jn case ofdeath due to mine accidenttfie female depemtent would have the opliCTi to eittier aceept mon^ay compensafipn of Rs. 300(V- R.m. ^Annexure R/3) or emptoymeht iir^pective of her age. This ctause was subsequendy amended and fte amount <rf monetaiy compensation was inGreased to Rs. 400Q<- p.ro, (Annexure P/7). In the presentrase moBier of the pefitioner had chosetii monetary compenSationlnstead^of employmeht, as suctt she wa&iniBaUyr granted Rs. %X?0/- p.m. as inonetaFyeompensatiCTiand ttiereafter itjv^sj i:.': mcreasedtoF^4QOO^pjn.TheN.eWA(k^^pK»fl^ compensatKmas v^l ias en'iploYment to'c^r^^f^ attainingtheagetrfmajority. 1 | i''.; 7. The peCtioner ha& fllie({|tfiis,;psB^i ^uttt jur^scpla^ied inordin^Sefldgla^ 1! ..;..:i;.:!::i;^ti:i..i:.'.i.1-fc.^^y<:ii.!.:l.!l seeking a directiw to Jftft (es(%n<lents to^ :iM 'l ^i^^^am^^iw^^»S^^i'^^e'^^^S^hit^\ ^|^l:Mi»!j|0''NM}rffist^:^Wffil^i^^ j^ ljs^^3^1t^|^<iBu(^^ueijS}a(i^at^ (^j^^s^^pyTOI^tBiis ||es<^ju^j^li|Roi(&£Kq3^ jiW^^|u||®N^^ui|usuii)i<ajiu^^ 8iO!^juig^S6©Ue?aiwa^!^e|ireij3nS^ ; -l.fepynselftey^ti&i^ui^^^-o'S^StSOO&y^lNPiuw^t^ •^sii3yt& js^ ^ % (*W a>^P ^^SMtUfcWnoo ^^d^ 81CI.U®H®41'01. •sSejsyjOSies^oStPswBns^MS IIB"ui"d •^ ^i^Ss! st|swssaid ^ pue?^t '.^9}3©i90U!SJ9UOi}i^d St|»^ J®y}6uisy; 6» •u^ -yo(^ psses^ stjt^ sjsquisui Ajtu^ ^^ ^ie^ si^^ 818 4S 8pB 0} 13!|SJ ^PSUIUJI! t»P!A®J<tSA^^^^ 8563 ^sSaidsiftUi^jsqujsuj^auessioss^^ssiutsp^suiHunstB^ UQ siU8pusd6p siftua||e^ si^jaierayCTiyupppnssiftj^^^^ ^^jQoonsaftiB^Si^sq^^y^io^^uoissedu^ sio4tt siB»pfl pisq i"^ ^^d^^s^^ } tjBujS U1R|8H 'SA.^Wue P^ |M60aAAM3!fl33@ ams eueftieH "! "8 •8U!03UtjOSSaiI10SJ@!lflOUIOfl^(|ei3UeUlfS8At9SUIStB ifle}sns pinoo sjsquistu ^iUijet ^qijt vjsuQuiodcfe ©leuoissediuwluiep Q»^Uf^S!q8nS»18pU^OpS8feidU18Stn^lt^8p8JSW}8lttP8|BSS||S oB|ea41^W*oi^®®M^€<8 u^jwes!suaie@ueu^^pRS®4tJ^ spgat^uiqenounusdsiqeu&ptaiuftlupjodde^ Stfl>^o j8i^u|'uoBn^ajsui6^ss<(qduisp8ses3sp$q)josisquiwy AIIUI^ ^s^i^ap stft Kffi^ti^ joj ssaiisjp u; Ajjiye^ elft jo uogB}i|!qBya» sieipsultw j<y s(MA<ud o^ AliiiSe^ e s; fywt 'iustu^n.iosii jo poi^ui e ^u ^ puruyB s^uojss^uws uo tuwu^iQddeaw !^^^^^ si u -g •I.OOZ'6-ZZ uo ^tguiodd®s)eu<MssedUK» J<y uoi^^^ ' ^ pue t^r^'Z uo ^ip ^g^ M;^^ saanip y^s^y. ••.'"••':'" •'.'"',. " :- : r ::; ^,11 -i.lftl ^: .)'• llli >1 ^ Ttalcur This geheral rute shoyld not be d^alted <rem ew;^ wtw compdting circumstancesdemand, sud) as, cteattt of tt»e sc breadvrinner and likeiihood <rf the family sufl'erihg because of tt setback.Once it is proved ftat in sfMte of ttle' death of tt br^dwinner, the family survivsd ahd substanfe! period Js ova there is no necessity to say''goodbye" to Sie normat rute a appointmentand toshowfavoar to one at the costoffteinteresfe of swerat others ignoring the mandate of Articte 14 ctf the CoRStifaifion." tt.In view of the above setBed prineiptes of law, er& is no merit in this p^litiejn. The^petitjon isaceordinglydismBsed. No orderasto costs. Sd<- Satish K. Agnihotn judge '^-" 1. '!, .'!