LexM/S. EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. versus ANIL BADYAKAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 480 .... r ~' A MIS. EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. v. ANIL BADYAKAR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3597 of 2009) B MAY 15, 2009 [TARUN CHATIERJEE AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] ,_.. + Service Law - Compassionate appointment - Claim for - Delay in, of 12 years - Held: Compassionate appointment c rightly denied, in view of object and purpose thereof. The question for consideration in the present appeal was, whether or not in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appointment made in respect of respondent D (son-in-law of the deceased employee) after 12 years, w would negate the very object of compassionate ~ appointment. Allowing the appeal, the Court E HELD: The compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. In ~ t the instant case, the employee died.in harness in the year ... F 1981 and after a long squabble by the dependents of the deceased, they arrived at a settlement that the son-in-law i.e. husband of the second daughter, who is unemployed may request for appointment on compassionate grounds. The request so made was accepted by the Personal G Manager of the Company subject to the approval of the Director of the Company. The Director (P) , who is the ~ competent authority for post facto approval, keeping in ' view the object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment has rightly cancelled the provisional H 480 > EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. v. ANIL BADYAKAR & 481 ~- ORS. ', appointment on the ground that nearly after 12 years from A the date of death of the employee such an appointment could not have been offered to the so called dependent of the deceased employee. [Para 19] (489-8-E] Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4 B ... SCC 138; Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC --+- 301; MMTC Ltd. vs. Pramoda Dei (1997) 11 SCC 390; S. Mohan vs. Government of T.N., (1998) 9 SCC 485; Director of Education (Secondary) vs. Pushpendra Kumar (1998) 5 SCC 192; Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2000) 7 SCC c 192; Punjab National Bank vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja (2004) ''l 7 SCC 265; Union of India vs. Bhagwan Singh (1995) 6 SCC 436; State of U.P. vs. Paras Nath (1998) 2 SCC 412; Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Naresh Tanwar (1996) 8 SCC 23; '"'!' Haryana SEB vs. Krishna Devi (2002) 10 SCC 246; National D i< Hydroelectric Power Corpn. vs. Nanak Chand (2004) 12 SCC 487 and State of J&K vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006) 5 SCC 766, relied on. Case Law Reference: - (1994) 4 sec 138 E Relied on. Para 6 ., (1996) 1 sec 301 Relied on. Para 7 ~ (1997) 11 sec 390 Relied on. Para 8 -.. (1998) 9 sec 485 Relied on. Para 9 F ' (1998) 5 sec 192 Relied on. Para 10 (2000) 1 sec 192 Relied on. Para 11 ~ (2004) 1 sec 265 Relied on. Para 12 G (1995) 6 sec 436 Relied on. Para 13 ~ (1996) s sec 23 Relied on. Para 14 " 4 (1998) 2 sec 412 Relied on Para 15 H 482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R. _r A (2002) 1 o sec 246 Relied on. Para 16 (2004) 12 sec 487 Relied .011, Para 17 (2006) s sec 766 ReliQd on, Para 18 B CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3597 of 2009. ' .. From the Judgment & Order dated 4.5.2007 of the High + C9~rt of C~lcutta in MAT No. 721 of 2005 and MAT No. 763 of 2005. c Anip Sachthey and Shree Pal Singh for the appearing parties. ,., The Order of the Cpµrt was delivered by D ORDER '1" ~ H.L. DATTU,J. 1. Leave gr?nted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division E Bench of High Court of Calcutta rejecting the appeals filed by the appellant and thereby confirming the order passed by - learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 16515of1994 dated 14.8.2003. -t- 3. The issue that would arise for our consideration is, ~ F whether or not in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appointment made in respect of respondent, who is the son- in-law of the deceased after 12 years, would negates the very object of compassionate· appointment. G 4. The facts in brief are :- ~ One Kato Dome, the father-in-Jaw of the petitioner, while he was in service of Samia Colliery, ECL, under coal India Limited, died on 31st December, 1981. After the death of said ' H .... EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. v. ANIL BADYAKAR & 483 ~ ORS. [H.L. DATTU, J.] Kala Dome, his wife submitted an appl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.