Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1564 (JHR)

Central Coalfields Limited v. Santosh Prasad

2009-12-09

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, R.A.PRASAD

body2009
Order This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 4.12.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4885/2003, by which the learned Single Judge had been pleased to allow the writ petition and quashed the order dated 18.1.2003 passed by the Personnel Manager (MP), Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi, by which employment to the respondent on compassionate ground was refused. The learned Single Judge, however, had not granted conclusive .relief in favour of the respondent as it has merely been directed to the appellant, Central Coalfields Limited, to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and the prayer of the petitioner in the light of the judgment and observations relied upon by the learned Single Judge and pass an appropriate order for compassionate appointment in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order. 2. The respondent/appellant herein, Central Coalfields Limited, has preferred this appeal in spite of the fact .that it has merely been directed to consider the case of the respondent for compassionate appointment and in support of the appeal, it was submitted that the respondent's case was rejected by the appellant, Central Coalfields Limited, on the ground that he had not filed an application for compassionate appointment as per the circular which required that an application for compassionate appointment be filed within a period of six months of the date of death of the employee on whom the claimant was dependent. It was further submitted that the respondent's name did not find place in the list of applicants for compassionate appointment and therefore, his case was not fit to be considered. 3. In fact, we have noticed that the learned Single Judge has merely directed the appellant to consider the prayer of the petitioner/respondent herein in the light of the judgment delivered in the matter of Satya Narayan Chaudhary vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. reported in 2007(3) JLJR 692 as also other cases referred to therein. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order as the appellant, Central Coalfields Limited, will have to explain as to how the petitioner/respondent's case is distinguishable from the facts of the judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge, after which it will also have to assign reasons in this regard. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order as the appellant, Central Coalfields Limited, will have to explain as to how the petitioner/respondent's case is distinguishable from the facts of the judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge, after which it will also have to assign reasons in this regard. Since the reasons relied upon by the appellant, Central Coalfields Limited, for rejecting the case of the respondent are contrary to that of the judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. The appeal, under the circumstance, is dismissed.