Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 53 (JHR)

Chandana Rawani v. Central Coal Field Limited

2010-01-08

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is against the order dated 28./29.8.2002 passed by the respondents, whereby his prayer for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected only on the ground that the application for compassionate appointment was filed after expiry of the stipulated period of six months limitation. Counsel for the petitioner submits that such a stand cannot possibly be taken by the respondents and in fact, the petitioner's prayer has been rejected arbitrary and whimsically by the respondents. Learned counsel explains that the petitioner had claimed for grant of compassionate appointment on the basis of the prevalent rule extended to the employees of the respondents under the terms of clause 9.4.2 of the NCWA. The benefit of the aforesaid clause is available to the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner's father was employed under the respondents-CCL and he died in harness in December 1998. The petitioner, filed his application before the respondents for grant of compassionate appointment which was rejected only on the ground that it was filed after lapse of six months limitation period. Learned counsel explains that though on the date of death of the petitioner's father, the period stipulated was six months but vide Circular issued on 1st January 2002, the respondents had extended the limitation period by one year with effect from February 2000. The petitioner's representation was considered and the decision was taken by the respondents authorities in the month of August 2002 and at that time, the extended period of limitation was applicable. The petitioner had admittedly filed his application much within the extended period of one year from the date of death of his father and therefore, the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment cannot be denied. Learned counsel for the respondent submits on the other hand by reference to the statements contained in the counter affidavit and argues in support of the impugned order, that the petitioner's father had died in December 1998 and at that time, the period of limitation for filing an application for compassionate appointment was six months. The petitioner having not filed any application within the aforesaid period of limitation, his candidature could not be considered. The petitioner having not filed any application within the aforesaid period of limitation, his candidature could not be considered. As it appears, the period of limitation of six months was though fixed by the respondents for compliance of provisions of NCWA, but subsequently the period was extended to one year by a specific order /circular issued by the respondents in the month of February 2002, by which it was made effective from February 2000. Admittedly on the date when the petitioner's representation was considered, the period of limitation stood extended by one year. It is not disputed that the petitioner's application was submitted within one year and not later that. As it appears from the impugned order, the petitioner's prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected on a misconceived ground without adverting to the fact that on the date of consideration of the petitioner's application, the period of limitation stood extended by one year and the earlier limitation of six months did not apply to the petitioner's case. It is settled principle of law that on the date of considering of application for compassionate appointment, the rule which was applicable on that date shall prevail. This view finds support from a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Satya Narayan Choudhary Vs. Central Coalfields Limited & ors., ( 2007 (3) JLJR 692 ). The argument of the respondents that after the lapse of such a long period from the date of demise of the employee, the claim for compassionate appointment now has become stale and the very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the petitioner who had a right to claim compassionate appointment on the basis of service of his father had filed his application accordingly claiming his right but the same was rejected by the respondent authorities by on an erroneousness ground. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be faulted for the delay. In the light of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities of the respondents to reconsider the prayer for compassionate appointment of the petitioner in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner and also in the light of the ratio decided in the case of Satya Narayan Choudhary (Supra). The impugned order (Annexure3) is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the concerned authorities of the respondents to take a decision on this issue within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and such decision must be effectively communicated to the petitioner. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.