Rajesh Kumar Vs. Central Coal Fields Ltd. Through Its Chairman and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - we may also observe that when the division bench of the high court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought 'compassion',the bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule.orderr.k. merathia, j.1. heard the parties finally.2. in this writ petition, the order dated 9.4.2003 (annexure-7) was challenged by the petitioner, by which his claim for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that his name does not appear in the official records of the ex-employee.3. learned counsel for the petitioner relied on service excerpts, ps-3 form and also subsequent orders passed on 24.5.2006 by the assistant labour commissioner, central, hazaribagh under payment of gratuity act to show that he is the son of ex-employee.4. mr. ananda sen, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand submitted as follows. the respondents are required to go by the service records of ex-employee. petitioner's name did not find place in the service records. the endorsement made at the bottom of the service excerpts to the effect that petitioner was son of the ex-employee, appears to have been made afterwards as there is no counter signature of any competent authority over the same. ps-3 form is also doubtful as it will mean that at the time of petitioner's birth, the age of his mother was only 13 years, and moreover the said document is sent to cmpf office, and is not part of the records of the company.5. the said order passed by the authority under payment of gratuity act is a subsequent order. the ex-employee died on 29.4.2000. his family received the death-cum-retiral benefits. petitioner has survived for about eight years and therefore in any event, this court should not direct the respondents to consider petitioner's case on compassionate ground.6. in the facts and circumstances, noticed above, it cannot be said that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner, on the ground that his name did not find place in the service records of ex-employee was unjustified. there was doubt about the documents relied by the petitioner. there is dispute over facts between the parties. even if it is accepted that petitioner is son of ex-employee, now when he has survived for about eight years, i am not inclined to direct the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground. the order dated 12.3.2008 passed in w.p. (s) no. 6398 of 2008-tahal mahto, relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, is of no help to the petitioner, as matter was remitted for reconsideration, on concession, it has been held in the case reported in : [1994]3scr893 , umesh kumar nagpal, v. state of haryana and ors. that consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and' after the crisis is over. paragraph 11 of : air2006sc2743 , state of j&k; and ors. v. sajad ahmed mir, reads as follows:we may also observe that when the division bench of the high court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought 'compassion', the bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. normally, an employment in the government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. it is in consonance with article 14 of the constitution. on the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. this general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. once it is proved that in spice of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interest of several others ignoring the mandate of article 14 of the constitution.in the facts and circumstances, noticed above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

R.K. Merathia, J.

1. Heard the parties finally.

2. In this writ petition, the order dated 9.4.2003 (Annexure-7) was challenged by the petitioner, by which his claim for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that his name does not appear in the official records of the ex-employee.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on service excerpts, PS-3 Form and also subsequent orders passed on 24.5.2006 by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central, Hazaribagh under payment of Gratuity Act to show that he is the son of ex-employee.

4. Mr. Ananda Sen, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand submitted as follows. The respondents are required to go by the service records of ex-employee. Petitioner's name did not find place in the service records. The endorsement made at the bottom of the service excerpts to the effect that petitioner was son of the ex-employee, appears to have been made afterwards as there is no counter signature of any competent authority over the same. PS-3 Form is also doubtful as it will mean that at the time of petitioner's birth, the age of his mother was only 13 years, and moreover the said document is sent to CMPF office, and is not part of the records of the Company.

5. The said order passed by the authority under Payment of Gratuity Act is a subsequent order. The ex-employee died on 29.4.2000. His family received the death-cum-retiral benefits. Petitioner has survived for about eight years and therefore in any event, this Court should not direct the respondents to consider petitioner's case on compassionate ground.

6. In the facts and circumstances, noticed above, it cannot be said that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner, on the ground that his name did not find place in the service records of ex-employee was unjustified. There was doubt about the documents relied by the petitioner. There is dispute over facts between the parties. Even if it is accepted that petitioner is son of ex-employee, now when he has survived for about eight years, I am not inclined to direct the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The order dated 12.3.2008 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6398 of 2008-Tahal Mahto, relied by learned Counsel for the petitioner, is of no help to the petitioner, as matter was remitted for reconsideration, on concession, it has been held in the case reported in : [1994]3SCR893 , Umesh Kumar Nagpal, v. State of Haryana and Ors. that consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and' after the crisis is over. Paragraph 11 of : AIR2006SC2743 , State of J&K; and Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, reads as follows:

We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought 'compassion', the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spice of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interest of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.

In the facts and circumstances, noticed above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.