Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1404 (JHR)

Manti Devi v. Central Coalfield Ltd.

2008-12-05

AJIT KUMAR SINHA

body2008
Order The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing that part of the order dated 25.1.2003, as contained in memo No. 2298 issued under the signature of General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Kuju, whereby and where under petitioner's grievance for appointment on compassionate ground as Sanitation Mazdoor has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has approached the respondents for appointment on compassionate ground after expiry of one year and eleven months of the death of her husband as the respondent himself has sought the willingness from the petitioner whether she is willing to work as Sanitation Mazdoor or not and pursuant thereto the petitioner has given her willingness to work as Sanitation Mazdoor and also for a direction to the respondents, particularly respondent no. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to the post of Sanitation Mazdoor as the petitioner's representation dated 3.3.03 is pending before the respondent no. 2. 2. It appears that earlier also writ petition W.P.(S) No. 6136/02 was filed, In which the Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 20.11.02 directed the respondent no. 2, General Manager, C.C.L. Kuju Area, Kuju to determine and. pay the admitted death-cum-retiral benefit to the Widow of late Bhondwa Bhuiyan within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order and also observed that as regards the appointment on compassionate ground the respondent will consider the same and pass an appropriate order and pursuant thereto by a detailed speaking order dated 25.1.2003 the respondent authority rejected the claim of the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon a letter addressed by her dated 3.3.2003 which is annexed as Annexure-3 and along with that letter one internal letter dated 1/3.12.99 has also been annexed issued by Staff Officer (P), Kuju Area indicating the fact that she had given consent and was ready to work as Sanitation Mazdoor. 4. The main contention raised by the petitioner is based on the aforesaid letter that once the internal letter records the consent that the petitioner was ready to work as Sanitation Mazdoor she is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. 5. 4. The main contention raised by the petitioner is based on the aforesaid letter that once the internal letter records the consent that the petitioner was ready to work as Sanitation Mazdoor she is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. 5. The aforesaid argument is not sustainable because only giving consent for compassionate appointment petitioner cannot have any accrued, legal or vested right to claim it. The fact remains that the rejection of compassionate appointment was on the ground that the application was filed after a lapse of one year and eleven months after the date of death of petitioner's husband and even the rejection order was communicated to her by the respondent authority" vide letter dated 10/29.3.2000. 6. Without going into the controversy, this writ petition even otherwise cannot be entertained in vie'" of the dispute with regard to nominee, since the name of the petitioner does not appear in the list of nominee as indicated by the respondents. 7. However, the respondents are directed to clear and pay the retiral dues in accordance with law after verifying the credential of the dependent(s) of the deceased employee within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of but without any order as to cost.