Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 835 (JHR)

Phulo Devi v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

2009-05-25

D.N.PATEL

body2009
Order Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to add “The Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Ranchi", as party-respondent no. 4. 2. Permission, as prayed for, is granted, for addition of party-respondent no. 4. 3. Necessary amendment shall be carried out during course of the day. 4. Mr. Deepak Roshan, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of newly added respondent no. 4. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the husband of the present petitioner expired on 23rd July, 1997 and thereafter, an application was preferred by the present petitioner, prior to 12th January, 1998, for getting compassionate appointment as the husband of the present petitioner was serving with the respondent no. 1. Thereafter, it appears that the respondent no. 1 had insisted that the application ought to have been given in a prescribed format, which is not available in the market and therefore, some delay has been caused in getting the prescribed format from the respondent no. 1 and therefore, the claim for the compassionate appointment was re-affirmed in an accurate application dated 4th April, 1998, but, this claim is nothing, but, reiteration of her claim which was already made prior to 12th January, 1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner is relying upon the decision passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 1469 of 2007 dated 19th February, 2009 and submitted that in a similar situated matter, it has been held by this Court that in such a situation, there is no delay, when accurate claim is filed later on. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also relying upon a decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mahto VS. Central Coal Field ltd. & Others as reported in 2007(8) SCC 549 and has submitted that the claim of the present petitioner cannot be rejected on a delay, as stated by respondent no. 1. 6. In view of these submissions and looking to the aforesaid two decisions, 1 hereby direct the General Manager (Personnel and Industrial Relations) of respondent no. Central Coal Field ltd. & Others as reported in 2007(8) SCC 549 and has submitted that the claim of the present petitioner cannot be rejected on a delay, as stated by respondent no. 1. 6. In view of these submissions and looking to the aforesaid two decisions, 1 hereby direct the General Manager (Personnel and Industrial Relations) of respondent no. 1 to consider the case of the present petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground other than delay because the claim was already lodged, by the present petitioner, for compassionate appointment prior to 12th January, 1998 and on 4th April, 1998, there was a reiteration, in an accurate format and therefore, the case of the present petitioner shall be considered afresh, in accordance with law, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to her representative, as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, passed by this Court. I hereby, also direct respondent no. 4 to release the legally payable amount of the provident fund of the petitioner, looking to the counter affidavit filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3, that all the necessary papers for the payment of the provident fund to the petitioner has already been forwarded to the newly added party-respondent no. 4 and therefore, upon proper verification of these papers and looking to the legally payable amounts to the petitioner, payable under the provisions of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme, the amount is directed to be paid to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not paid so far, or if partly paid, then after giving set off the part payment, remaining amount shall be paid to the petitioner. I hereby, also direct the respondent no. 3 to treat this writ petition as representation for payment of other retirement benefits legally payable to the petitioner because of the death of the husband of the present petitioner. This decision shall also be taken within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to her representative. 7. This decision shall also be taken within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to her representative. 7. In view of the aforesaid directions, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by respondent no. 3 dated 7th August, 2002 which is at Annexure-3 to the memo of the present petition in view of the decisions preferred hereinabove. 8. In view of the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of,