Jharkhand HC orders SAIL to give compassionate job after 14-year legal battle
Ranchi, June 30: In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has directed the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) to provide…
Ranchi, June 30: In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has directed the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) to provide compassionate appointment to the son of a deceased Bokaro Steel Plant employee, holding that the company wrongly denied the benefit despite the employee suffering from a debilitating heart disease.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar allowed the appeal filed by Md. Sultan Ahmad, set aside a Single Judge’s order, and directed Bokaro Steel Plant to offer him compassionate appointment within six weeks. The court also imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on SAIL for making the appellant fight a legal battle for more than 14 years.
Court favours purposive interpretation
The appellant’s father, a Bokaro Steel Plant employee, had sought medical invalidation in 2011 due to multiple ailments, including ischaemic heart disease. Although he died two days after being examined by the Medical Invalidation Board (MIB), the Board declared him “medically not invalid”, and SAIL rejected the family’s claim for compassionate appointment.
ALSO READ: Jharkhand HC upholds relief to retired police officer, dismisses DGP’s appeal
The High Court held that the MIB should have considered the employee’s medical condition at the time of examination rather than relying solely on the cause of death mentioned in the death certificate. It noted that the employee was suffering from ischaemic heart disease, a listed debilitating disease under SAIL’s policy.
The Bench also relied on the findings of the Ethics Committee of the Medical Council of India, which had concluded that the employee should have been declared medically unfit for duty.
SAIL criticised
The court said welfare schemes such as compassionate appointment should receive a purposive, broader interpretation to advance their objectives rather than be defeated by a narrow reading of the rules.
Coming down heavily on SAIL, the Bench observed that the company had adopted different tactics to deny the appellant relief despite earlier judgments favouring similar claims. It described the respondents’ conduct as “a gross case of arbitrariness and mala fide attitude” and directed payment of ₹50,000 as costs.
The court ordered SAIL to provide compassionate appointment and pay the cost within six weeks. It also directed the respondents to file a compliance affidavit by August 17, 2026.
