Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1404 (JHR)

Manoj Kumar v. Central Coalfields Ltd

2009-11-09

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for his appointment on compassionate grounds 'on the basis of his father's employment under the respondents and. on the basis of the provisions as contained in Clause 9.4.0 of the N.C.W. Agreement-VNI. 3. The facts of the petitioner's case in brief are as follows:- The petitioner's father late Haria was an ex-employee under the respondents. He had separated from service on medical grounds on 11.2.1997. Upon such separation a lady namely Sanicharya Devi, claiming herself to be the wife of the employee, had submitted her application for compassionate appointment. Upon being satisfied of her claim, the respondents conceded to appoint her and in fact a letter of appointment was issued to her on 15.5.1998. However, upon some objections raised by the employees' union against the grant of such appointment to the lady on the ground that she is the second wife of the ex-employee, the respondent employer proceeded to withdraw the appointment by issuing a letter dated 23.2.2000. Within less than three months from the date of receipt of withdrawal letter, the petitioner being the eldest son of the ex-employee, submitted his application seeking compassionate appointment on the ground of his father's service. Such application was admittedly submitted in the office of the concerned authorities of the respondents on 8.5.2000. 4. Sri AK Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no response was conveyed to the petitioner upon his application seeking compassionate appointment The only information the petitioner could gain was that his application was processed through the various departments including the Vigilance and Legal Section, for clearance but to the knowledge of the petitioner, .no final decision on the same has been communicated to the petitioner. Learned counsel adds further that it is only through the counter affidavit of the respondents that the petitioner has come to understand that the respondents have refused to grant his prayer for compassionate appointment on the ground of delay in submitting the application. Learned counsel adds further that it is only through the counter affidavit of the respondents that the petitioner has come to understand that the respondents have refused to grant his prayer for compassionate appointment on the ground of delay in submitting the application. Learned counsel explains that the respondents cannot take such plea of delay firstly, because in none of the Clauses of the N.C.W.A. was there any stipulation, limiting the period within which the application for compassionate appointment should be made and furthermore, even otherwise, there was no delay in submitting the application in view of the fact that the petitioner had submitted his application within less than three months from the date of receipt of the letter from the respondents whereby they had proceeded to recall the order of appointment of the petitioner's mother. Learned counsel argues that the delay, if any, has been adequately explained and as such, there could be no such plea available to the respondents for refusing the petitioner's prayer for appointment. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the responde'1ts. Sri Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents would argue that as it appears from the pleadings of the petitioner, no application by or on behalf of the petitioner could have been filed in the first instance in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner, on the date of separation of his father from service, was still a minor. As regards the delay, learned counsel would want to explain that a period of limitation has been stipulated as explanations to the terms of the relevant clauses fixing a period of one and half years for submitting the application for compassionate appointment. As it appears, the ex-employee had separated from service in February, 1997 whereas the application filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was in May, 2000 i.e. after a delay of more than two and half years. 6. Upon hearing the counsel for the parties and on going through the facts of the case, I find that the petitioner could not possibly file his application for his compassionate appointment even when such application had already been filed by his mother and in response she was favoured with grant of an appointment. The occasion for the petitioner, to claim compassionate appointment could arise only after the appointment granted to his mother was unilaterally cancelled by the respondents. The occasion for the petitioner, to claim compassionate appointment could arise only after the appointment granted to his mother was unilaterally cancelled by the respondents. The respondents cannot deny that under the terms of the N.C.W.A., a privilege has been extended to its employees under which one of the dependents of the ex-employee is entitled for grant of appointment, albeit on compassionate grounds. The circumstances in the present case as indicated above, would amply demonstrate that the petitioner could not possibly submit his application within the purported one and half years period of limitation since such application could be filed only after the withdrawal of the letter of appointment which was earlier granted to his mother. In this manner, the delay, if any, has been adequately explained by the petitioner. The respondents ought to have considered this aspect of the facts in proper perspective before taking any decision on the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment. 7. In the light of the above discussions, this application is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities of the respondents to reconsider and take an appropriate decision on the petitioner's prayer for grant of compassionate appointment after considering the explanations offered by the petitioner in proper perspective and to intimate their decision to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt production of a copy of this order. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent C.C.L.