Both the applications are heard together and disposed of by this order.
In W.P.(S) No. 2479 of 2014, the petitioner challenged the order dated 17.2.2005(Annexure-9), whereby the services of petitioner's husband namely, Bhuneshwar Ram has been terminated from the post of 'Dumper' operator.
In W.P.(S) No.2480 of 2014, the petitioners challenged the order contained in letter No.1289, dated 25.4.2013(Annexure-19), whereby the application of son of petitioner no.1 for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the C.C.L. authority by a reasoned order.
It appears that the husband of the petitioner no.1 namely, Bhuneshwar Ram was working in Religarha colliery of C.C.L. as 'Dumper' operator, Grade-2. It then appears that in the year 1998, he was declared sick by the C.C.L. hospital, but when he did not appear for further treatment, the hospital authority discharged him. Thereafter, the husband of petitioner no.1 never appeared for discharging his duty. It further appears that petitioner no.1 namely, Sukwara Devi informed the C.C.L. authority by letters dated 20.3.1998, 4.12.2002, 07.7.2003 and 16.1.2004 that her husband is missing from the house. Ultimately, she filed a certificate issued by Orissa Government that her husband died on 02.6.2006.
However, it appears from the record that because the husband of petitioner no.1 was not attending the office continuously without any information, a charge sheet issued against him vide charge sheet no. 10275, dated 10.2.2001 and on the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet, a departmental proceeding initiated against him. It further appears from the record that in spite of issuance of notices by the C.C.L. authority, the husband of petitioner no.1 did not turn up to defend himself, nor any document filed on behalf of the petitioner before the enquiry officer. Thus, the enquiry proceeded ex-parte and ultimately, the charges were found true. Thereafter, services of the husband of the petitioner no.1 was terminated by C.C.L. authority (Annexure-9 to W.P.(S) No.2479 of 2014), which is impugned in that writ application.
It further appears that petitioners filed applications before the C.C.L. authority for compassionate appointment, but the same was not accepted. Thereafter, petitioners filed a writ application vide W.P.(S) No.7838 of 2011, which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.2.2013 directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners and pass appropriate order within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. It further appears that after receipt of the aforesaid order, the representation of the petitioners has been considered by the competent authority and disposed of vide letter no. 1289, dated 25.4.2013, whereby the representation of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the case of the petitioners do not come within the purview of the compassionate appointment, because the services of the deceased employee namely, Bhuneshwar Ram was terminated before the date of his death. The aforesaid order by which the representations of the petitioners rejected has been challenged in W.P.(S) No.2480 of 2014.
It is submitted by Sri Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the order of termination of services of late Bhuneshwar Ram is bad because petitioner no.1 namely, Sukwara Devi informed the competent authority that her husband was missing from the house. It is further submitted that as per the provisions contained in Section 108 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if a person is missing and traceless continuously for 7 years, then it will be presumed that he died, therefore, petitioners are entitled to compassionate appointment after lapse of such period. Accordingly, it is submitted that a suitable direction be issued to the respondent authority to appoint the petitioner no.2 on compassionate ground.
On the other hand, Sri Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that even if the petitioner no.1 gave information to the C.C.L. authority about the missing of her husband, the C.C.L. is not obliged to continue the services of the husband of the petitioner no.1. It is further submitted that if the husband of petitioner no.1 was not attending the duty for long period, the C.C.L. authority is entitled to terminate his services under the rule. It is further submitted that the services of the husband of petitioner no.1 was terminated in the year 2005, whereas as per the death certificate, the date of his death was 02.06.2006. Thus, it is an admitted position that the services of the husband of petitioner no.1 terminated prior to his death, therefore, the relevant Clause of N.C.W.A. relating to compassionate appointment has no application in the case of petitioners.
Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of both the cases. Admittedly, the husband of petitioner no.1 was not attending the duty since 1998. It also reveals from the record that in the year 2001, a charge sheet issued against the deceased employee and notices sent to him at his both addresses i.e., permanent address as well address at Religarha, but in spite of that neither the husband of petitioner no.1 nor the petitioners appeared before the enquiry officer and constrained with the same, the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry ex-parte and ultimately, found that the charges are true. Thereafter, services of the husband of petitioner no.1 terminated on 17.2.2005.
It appears that the petitioners filed application for compassionate appointment in the year 2007 i.e., after the termination of the services of husband of petitioner no.1. As per C
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
lause 9.3.2. of N.C.W.A., dependent of an employee of C.C.L. is entitled for compassionate appointment only if the employee died during the employment. In this case, since the services of the employees has already been terminated prior to his death, therefore, in my view, the aforesaid provision of N.C.W.A. has no application. Thus, the C.C.L. authority has rightly rejected the application of the petitioners for compassionate appointment. In view of the discussions made above, I find that there is no illegality in the impugned orders. Thus, I find no merit in both the writ applications, accordingly, the same are dismissed.