Case: Mohan Mahto Vs. M/S Central Coal Field Ltd.

There is no dispute whatsoever that the appellant-Bank is required to consider the request for compassionate appointment only in accordance with the scheme framed by it and no discretion as such left with any of the authorities to make compassionate appointment de hors the scheme. In our considered opinion the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be. 14. The period of six months limitation prescribed in the circular letter dated 12.12.1995 was not statutory. It is also not imperative in character. Even for entertaining such an application beyond the period of six months, the Headquarters of the Central Coal Field Limited is entitled to consider the facts and circumstances of each case. Admittedly, Appellant filed an application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground when he was a minor. His application was rejected on that premise at the first instance but even at that point of time the respondent did not take a stand that the same had not been entertained on the ground that the same was filed after expiry of the period of six months. 15. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the case for grant of compassionate appointment of a minor was required to be considered in terms of Sub-clause (iii) of Clause 9.5.0 of the N.C.W.A.V. In terms of the said provision, the name of the appellant was to be kept on a live roster. He was to remain on the live roster till he attained the age of 18 years. Respondents did not perform their duties cast on them thereunder. It took an unilateral stand that an application has been filed in the year 1999 in the prescribed form. For complying with the provisions of a settlement which is binding on the parties, bona fide or otherwise of the respondent must be judged from the fact as to whether it had discharged his duties thereunder or not. In this case, not only it failed and/ or neglected to do so, but as indicated hereinbefore it took an unholy stand that the elder brother of the appellant being employed, he was not entitled to appointment on the compassionate ground. Thus, what really impelled the respondent in denying the benefit of compassionate appointment to the appellant is, therefore, open to guess. We expect a public sector undertaking which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India not only to act fairly but also reasonably and bona fide. In this case, we are satisfied that the action of the respondent is neither fair nor reasonable nor bona fide. 16. We have indicated hereinbefore, that it is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether on the teeth of the provision of N.C.W.A.V., the respondent at all had any power to fix a time limit and thereby curtailing the right of the workman concerned. We would assume that even in such a matter, it had a right. But, even for the said purpose, keeping in view the fact that a beneficial provision is made under a settlement, the State was expected to act reasonably. While so acting, it must provide for a period of limitation which is reasonable. Apart from the fact that the period of limitation provided for in the circular letter with a power of relaxation can never be held to be imperative in character, the matter should also be considered from the subsequent conduct of the respondent insofar as it had issued another circular letter in the year 2000 providing for filing of an application for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of one year. It may be that the said circular letter has prospective operation but even in relation thereto we may notice that whereas the said circular letter was issued upon holding discussion with the Unions, the circular letter of the year 1995 was an unilateral one. Furthermore, in its letter dated 2/3.08.2000, it will bear repetition to state, expiry of the period of limitation was not taken as a ground for rejecting his application. Under-age and non-placement of his name in live roster are stated to be the reasons. It is, therefore, unfair on the part of the respondent to raise such a plea for the first time in its counter-affidavit to the writ petition. If he was under-age, definitely, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent to keep his name in the live roster. It was not done. 17. Reliance placed by the High Court on K.R. Vishwanath (supra), with respect, is misplaced. Therein, the terms and conditions of the parties were governed by a statute known as Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996. Rule 5 of the said Rules provided for a period of limitation. The said decision, therefore, cannot be said to have any application whatsoever in the instant case. 18. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Others [(1994) 4 SCC 138] whereupon reliance has been placed by Dr. Singhvi, this Court held: 6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. What should be a reasonable period would depend upon the rules operating in the field. 19.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We have indicated hereinbefore, that it is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether on the teeth of the provision of N.C.W.A.V., the respondent at all had any power to fix a time limit and thereby curtailing the right of the workman concerned. We would assume that even in such a matter, it had a right. But, even for the said purpose, keeping in view the fact that a beneficial provision is made under a settlement, the State was expected to act reasonably. While so acting, it must provide for a period of limitation which is reasonable. Apart from the fact that the period of limitation provided for in the circular letter with a power of relaxation can never be held to be imperative in character, the matter should also be considered from the subsequent conduct of the respondent insofar as it had issued another circular letter in the year 2000 providing for filing of an application for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of one year. It may be that the said circular letter has prospective operation but even in relation thereto we may notice that whereas the said circular letter was issued upon holding discussion with the Unions, the circular letter of the year 1995 was an unilateral one. Furthermore, in its letter dated 2/3.08.2000, it will bear repetition to state, expiry of the period of limitation was not taken as a ground for rejecting his application. Under-age and non-placement of his name in live roster are stated to be the reasons. It is, therefore, unfair on the part of the respondent to raise such a plea for the first time in its counter-affidavit to the writ petition. If he was under-age, definitely, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent to keep his name in the live roster. It was not doneReliance placed by the High Court on K.R. Vishwanath (supra), with respect, is misplaced. Therein, the terms and conditions of the parties were governed by a statute known as Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996. Rule 5 of the said Rules provided for a period of limitation. The said decision, therefore, cannot be said to have any application whatsoever in the instant caseIn Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Others [(1994) 4 SCC 138] whereupon reliance has been placed by Dr. Singhvi, this Court held:6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is overWhat should be a reasonable period would depend upon the rules operating in the field