Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 717 (JHR)

Charka Manjhi v. Central Coalfield Ltd.

2010-07-08

R.R.PRASAD

body2010
Order The matter relates to appointment of the petitioner either on the post of Grade 'C' or 'D' on compassionate appointment under the establishment of Central Coalfield Limited on account of death of the father of the petitioner in course of his employment. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner's father namely, late Birsa Manjhi working as Break Man at Giddi 'A' Colliery died-in-harness on 9.6.2003, leaving his wife, son (petitioner) and one unmarried daughter. Thereupon the petitioner filed an application before the respondent no. 5, the Project Officer, Central Coalfield Limited, Giddi 'A' Colliery on 15.10.2003 for giving him employment on compassionate ground. Before filing the said application, the authority had asked for a report from the Block Development Officer, Churchu regarding relationship in between the petitioner and the deceased employee and then under a letter dated 29.9.2003 (Annexure-4), mother of the petitioner was called upon to appear alongwith the dependents before the Screening Committee. In spite of these exercises, when no order was passed on the application of the petitioner relating to his appointment on compassionate grouno, the petitioner filed this writ application. When a counter affidavit was filed it was disclosed that the petitioner's claim of appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected and an order to this effect was communicated by Staff Officer (pers.) (A), Sirka to the Project Officer, Giddi 'A' Colliery, vide letter dated 15.7.2004 which was annexed as Annexure-E to the counter affidavit. The said decision was also communicated under letter dated 3.8.2004 (Annexure-F) to this petitioner. Upon coming to know that claim of the petitioner of appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected, the petitioner, by way of amendment petition being interlocutory application no. 722 of 2010 challenged those letters as contained in Annexures-E and F to the counter affidavit to be bad. The said prayer was allowed by this 'Court. 3. The case of the respondent as has been made out in the counter affidavit is that the deceased employee during his employment got the age of the petitioner recorded as 19 years as on 1 .4.1987 in the service excerpt of the deceased employee and in that eventuality, the petitioner would be completing 35 years of age on 1.4.2003 whereas petitioner's father died on 9.6.2003. It has also been disclosed that in the LTC record of concerned deceased, petitioner's age has been recorded as 18 years as on 1.12.1983 and as such, the petitioner completed 35 years of age on 1.12.2000. On this factual background, stand of the respondents is that the petitioner, being more than 35 years of age on the day when his father died, is not entitted to get appointment on compassionate ground. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from the statement made in the counter affidavit it is evidently clear that at different point of time, different age of the petitioner has been recorded which simply indicates that the entry with respect to age must not be based on any documents, rather whatever would have been disclosed by the father of the petitioner, an illiterate person that was recorded and under that situation, the entry made in the aforesaid documents relating to age of the petitioner should not have been taken to be a conclusive proof, particularly in view of the fact that even in a case of appointment of an illiterate employee his age, as per the instruction issued by National Coal Wage Agreement is verified by getting the employee medically examined and as such, the authority before rejecting the claim of the petitioner should have asked the• petitioner to get his age determined by Medical Board constituted by the Committee meant for taking decision in the matter of compassionate ground but since this exercise has not been undertaken, the decision rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his appointment being unreasonable is fit to be set aside. 5. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the Central Coalfield Limited submits that as per the entries relating to the age of the petitioner recorded in different records, age of the petitioner was more than 35 years on the date of death of his father and therefore, under the National Coal Wage Agreement, a dependent having more than 35 years of age is not entitled to employment. So far submission relating to determination of the age by the Medical Board is concerned that is not tenable as instruction no. 76 exclusively relates to determination of the age of different categories of the appointed employees and not for the dependents for the purpose of giving appointment on compassionate ground and, therefore, this writ application is fit to be dismissed. 76 exclusively relates to determination of the age of different categories of the appointed employees and not for the dependents for the purpose of giving appointment on compassionate ground and, therefore, this writ application is fit to be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the documents, I do find that different age of the petitioner at the instance of his father was recorded at different point of time which itself suggests that age recorded in the documents of the employer must not have been based on any document showing age of the petitioner, rather whatever would have been disclosed by the father of the petitioner, an illiterate person that was recorded in those documents and, therefore, entry made in those documents relating to age of the petitioner cannot be taken to be conclusive proof. In that event and also keeping in view the fact that age was exceeding only by one or two months and that scheme relating to compassionate appointment formulated under the National Coal Wage Agreement to give employment to dependent in case of death of the deceased during the course of employment is benevolent one recourse should have been taken by the Committee to get the age determined by the Board. 7. It be recorded that under Instruction No. 76 issued in terms of National Coal Wage Agreement, if age of an illiterate employee can be determined by getting him medically examined at the time of employment, there would have been no impediment in getting the age of the petitioner determined by the Medical Board particularly in context of the facts noted above as if one being illiterate is given appointment he, in terms of Instruction No. 76 needs to undergo medical test for determination of the age. Therefore, right course would have been for the Committee to go for medical examination of the petitioner to get his age determined before rejecting his claim. Since the Committee did not resort to the aforesaid exercise which, in the facts and circumstances, would have been just and proper, any decision taken by the Committee rejecting the claim of the petitioner is hereby quashed. 8. Since the Committee did not resort to the aforesaid exercise which, in the facts and circumstances, would have been just and proper, any decision taken by the Committee rejecting the claim of the petitioner is hereby quashed. 8. Consequently, the Committee is directed to take up the matter of the petitioner again so that the petitioner may be put for medical examination by Medical Board/Medical Officer for determination of the age and then to take the decision in the matter relating to appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. 9. Thus, this application is allowed. •