Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 422 (JHR)

Kouleshwar Mahto v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

2009-03-23

D.K.SINHA, GYAN SUDHA MISRA

body2009
Order This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 10.7.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5180/2007*, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant herein claiming compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father was dismissed. 2. The petitioner-appellant herein, Kouleshwar Mahto, had filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge claiming appointment in place of his deceased father, Jogi Mahto, who died in the year 1998. Admittedly the deceased Jogi Mahto in his service record had indicated the names of his two sons, who were Hira Lal and Bhuneshwar Mahto and a daughter After the death of the deceased employee. Jogi Mahto, the younger son, Bhuneshwar Mahto, filed an application claiming compassionate appointment from the respondent, Central Coalfields Ltd., in place of his deceased father and the documents in support of the- same were submitted by the appellant, which included his Matriculation Certificate also. In course of checking of the documents, the respondent, Central Coalfields Ltd., noticed that there was discrepancy in the name of the appellant claiming appointment as his name in the Matriculation Certificate was indicated as Kouleshwar Mahto, whereas his name in the service record of his father was Bhuneshwar Mahto. Another discrepancy that was noticed by the respondent was that the date of birth of the appellant in the service record of his deceased father was 1971 but the date of birth as per the Matriculation Certificate was 1977.Thus, there was a discrepancy not only with regard to the name of the appellant, but also the age of the appellant, which created a doubt as to whether he genuinely was the son of deceased Jogi Mahto or not. The respondent, Central Coalfields Ltd., therefore, rejected the application of the appellant and refused to grant-him appointment on compassionate ground. This prompted the petitioner-appellant to file a writ petition before the learned Single Judge, assailing the order of the respondent, Central Coalfields Ltd., refusing to grant him appointment. The learned Single Judge, on a consideration of facts and materials on record, was pleased to reject the writ petition, against which the appeal has been preferred. 3. This prompted the petitioner-appellant to file a writ petition before the learned Single Judge, assailing the order of the respondent, Central Coalfields Ltd., refusing to grant him appointment. The learned Single Judge, on a consideration of facts and materials on record, was pleased to reject the writ petition, against which the appeal has been preferred. 3. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased, Jogi Mahto, was illiterate and was discharging duties only as 4th Grade employee (Timber Mistri) and as he was illiterate, he indicated the nickname of his second son as Bhuneshwar Mahto and he also gave the approximate age of his second son and in fact, Kouleshwar Mahto and Bhuneshwar Mahto is one and the same person and hence, denial of appointment on com passionate ground was not justified. 4. It appears that a police report in the past had also been sought with regard to the identity as to whether Kouleshwar Mahto and Bhuneshwar Mahto are one and the same person and the police report indicated that Bhuneshwar Mahto and Kouleshwar Mahto are in fact one and the same person. The police report indicated that although Bhuneshwar Mahto is recorded as the son of the deceased, Jogi Mahto, whose name was found mentioned in the service record also as son of the deceased, Kouleshwar Mahto, in fact, is the son of the deceased Jogi Mahto. The end result of this enquiry obviously indicates that Kouleshwar Mahto although is the son of deceased, Jogi Mahto, his name having not been found n the service record, is affecting the claim of the appellant Kouleshwar Mahto for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. From the aforesaid fact, prima facie it appears that Kouleshwar Mahto's name although was not indicated in the service book of the deceased, Jogi Mahto, the fact remains that he was the son of deceased, Jogi Mahto, even as per the Matriculation Certificate; meaning thereby Kouleshwar Mahto and Bhuneshwar Mahto are one and the same person. 6. However, this Court, at the stage of appeal, cannot appreciate a question of fact, although reasonable inference may be drawn that Kouleshwar Mahto and Bhuneshwar Mahto are one and the same person. 6. However, this Court, at the stage of appeal, cannot appreciate a question of fact, although reasonable inference may be drawn that Kouleshwar Mahto and Bhuneshwar Mahto are one and the same person. But as the petitioner-appellant's deceased father, Jogi Mahto, was a 4th Grade employee who was discharging duties as Timber Mistri and was illiterate and it is only the appellant, who could be appointed, it is submitted that he alone is entitled to compassionate appointment. 7. However, the learned Single Judge had noticed that the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground of lack of his identity as also the fact that the age of the petitioner-appellant did not match with the age given out in the Matriculation Certificate and his age which was given by his deceased father in his service record, was also different. Besides this, the application of the petitioner-appellant for compassionate appointment was initially rejected in the year 1999 since the appellant had not attained the age of majority and subsequently even after attaining the age of majority, his application was rejected in the year 2002 on the ground that he had failed to produce any' document to the effect that he was, in fact, the second son of the deceased, Jogi Mahto. 8. from the aforesaid fact, it is crystal clear that the entire matter is full of disputed questions of facts and apart from other reasons, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that disputed questions of fact could not have been decided under the writ jurisdiction. 9. Thus, the petitioner, on the face of it, did not have a case for appointment on compassionate ground on account of lack of his identity and proof that he was the second son of the deceased, Jogi Mahto, and the only inference that may be drawn in his favour is that the appellant perhaps is the son of the deceased. Jogi Mahto, as per the police report and also as per the Matriculation Certificate, but the same cannot take the place of proof. 10. Jogi Mahto, as per the police report and also as per the Matriculation Certificate, but the same cannot take the place of proof. 10. However, as the identity of the appellant in view of the aforesaid facts, prima facie is to the effect that he is the son of the deceased, Jogi Mahto, we direct the respondent authority to consider the entire claim of the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground including the question whether the element of compassion in order to claim compassionate appointment does exist or not, considering his antecedents and family circumstance. In so far as the identity of the appellant is concerned, the same be considered in the light of his Matriculation Certificate indicating the name of his deceased father as also the fact that the deceased, Jogi Mahto had only two sons, out of whom the elder son was Hari Lal and the younger son was Bhuneshwar Mahto. Thus, the respondent-authority will consider as to whether Bhuneshwar Mahto and Kouleshwar Mahto are two different persons and not one and the same. The respondent-authority, therefore will pass an order as to whether the appellant is fit to be granted compassionate appointment or not after concluding the enquiry in the light of the aforesaid discussion. 11. In view of the aforesaid observation, the appeal is disposed of.