Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 761 (JHR)

Ashok Kumar Mehta v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

2010-07-29

R.R.PRASAD

body2010
Order It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's father, namely, Etwa Mahto @ Baldeo Mahto was a permanent employee of M/s Central Coalfields Limited. He was working as Mason (Category-IV) at Aarra Colliery of Central Coalfields limited. In course of employment, he sustained injuries, as a result of which, his left hand was amputed and as such, he became unfit to perform his work of a Mason. Accordingly, he was referred to the Central Medical Board for medical examination. Thereupon, petitioner's father on being examined on 2.7.1997 at Gandhi Nagar Hospital, Ranchi was declared unfit. Accordingly, his services were terminated on 13.8.1997 in terms of clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement. Thereafter the petitioner being son aged at that time as 35 years, applied in September, 1997 for giving employment in terms of clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement as he was dependant on his father Etwa Mahto. The petitioner also submitted his educational certificate in which his father's name has been recorded as Baldeo Mahto and not Etwa Mahto. In order to remove confusion, if any, the petitioner also submitted an affidavit dated 29.12.1997 sworn by his father Etwa Mahto stating therein that he is also known as Baldeo Mahto. Thereupon the matter was enquired into at the instance of the Project Officer, Aarra Colliery (respondent no. 5). The authority having been satisfied with the documents produced that the petitioner is the son of Etwa Mahto, who is also known as Baldeo Mahto made recommendation, vide letter no. 12423 dated 30.3.1998 (Annexure-11) for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. In spite of that, petitioner's claim was turned down by the respondent no. 6, vide its letter dated 13.2.1999 (Annexure-4). That order was challenged before this Court, vide C.W.J.C. No.1270 of 2000(R). The said writ application was disposed of directing the petitioner to produce the affidavit dated 29.12.1997 sworn by his father before the competent authority so that the matter be enquired into by verifying L.T.I. appearing on the affidavit with any other L.T.I. appearing in any service record as to whether the affidavit filed by the petitioner has been sworn by the father of the petitioner or not. Pursuant to that, the petitioner filed a representation before the competent authority on 12.6.2001 but when no order was passed, a contempt petition was filed. Pursuant to that, the petitioner filed a representation before the competent authority on 12.6.2001 but when no order was passed, a contempt petition was filed. During the pendency of that writ application, an order was passed as contained in letter dated 11.6.2002 (Annexure-7) whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was again rejected. The said letter as contained in Annexure-7 has been sought to be quashed in this writ application. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent without making any enquiry as to whether this petitioner is the son of Etwa Mahto or not rejected the claim by taking plea that the L.T.I. bearing on the document relating to service record of the Etwa Mahto could not have been verified by the R.T.I. appearing upon affidavit dated 29.12.1997. Thus without there being any enquiry on the point the claim of the petitioner was rejected which is quite illegal as many documents are there with the employer having RTI. of the petitioner's father as father of the petitioner continued to work till 13.8.1997 in spite of his left hand being amputed in the year 1996 but the authority did not take care to get the R.T.I. appearing on those documents verified from the R.T.I. appearing on the affidavit. 3. It was further submitted that apart from that, the respondent did not take into consideration the enquiry report submitted earlier, vide letter no. 12423 dated 30.3.1998 wherein, the authority of Central Coalfield Limited after holding enquiry, found that the petitioner is the son of Etwa Mahto. Thus, in these view of the matter, the order passed by the respondent-Project Officer rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground is fit to be set aside and accordingly, the authority be directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. 4. Thus, in these view of the matter, the order passed by the respondent-Project Officer rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground is fit to be set aside and accordingly, the authority be directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that in terms of the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.1270 of 2000(R) when an affidavit dated 29.12.1997 bearing R.T.I. of Etwa Mahto was filed, the same could not be verified as no document is in the service record of the petitioner having R.T.I. over it, rather all the documents relating to service record of the deceased employee do bear the L.T.I. of the deceased employee and that efforts were also taken to verify the genuineness of the affidavit from the office of the Executive• Magistrate, Hazaribagh but as it was reported that the concerned affidavit register is not available, the genuineity of the affidavit could not be verified and under this situation, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that the concerned authority of the Central Coalfields Limited had never been serious in holding the enquiry as to whether the petitioner is the son of Etwa Mahto or not. 6. In this respect it be pointed out that this Court while disposing of the earlier writ application, had recorded that the matter be enquired from the Oath Commissioner and if so necessary, may get the L.T.I. appearing on affidavit verified with the corresponding L.T.I. available on the document relating to service record of Etwa Mahto but the Court in the context of entire matter seems to have meant R.T.I. appearing on the affidavit as the deceased after amputation of the left hand had put R.T.I. on the affidavit and under this situation, the authorities were supposed to verify R.T.I. with any other documents concerning the service record having R.T.I. of the deceased employee. In this context, it be stated that it is the case of the petitioner that left hand of the petitioner's father was amputed in the year 1996 and still he went on working till 13.8.1997. In this context, it be stated that it is the case of the petitioner that left hand of the petitioner's father was amputed in the year 1996 and still he went on working till 13.8.1997. During this period, certainly there would be documents bearing R.T.I. of the deceased, but the authority never cared to get the R.T.I. appearing on the affidavit verified from the R.T.I. appearing on other documents. That apart, the authority also did not take into consideration the enquiry report which had earlier been submitted, vide letter no. 12423 dated 30.3.1998 wherein the authority after verifying all these matters had reported that the petitioner is the son of Etwa Mahto who is also known as Baldeo Mahto. The matter does not rest here, as the approach of the authority is how casual and indifferent would be evident from the fact that it has been stated in the counter affidavit that genuineity of the affidavit in terms of the order of the High Court could not be verified as relevant record was not available with the Executive Magistrate which fact has not only been denied in the reply to counter affidavit but even the photocopy showing relevant entry in the register has been annexed. Under the circumstances, the matter certainly appears to be serious but no cognizance is being taken only for the reason that statement made in the counter affidavit regarding non-availability of the relevant register is based on the information received from other person. 7. In the circumstances, the order dated 11.6.2002 passed by Project Officer as contained in Annexure-7 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the matter is again referred to the competent authority to take decision afresh in the matter of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order after holding enquiry as to whether petitioner is the son of Etwa Mahto @ Baldeo Mahto or not while holding enquiry the authority would take into consideration the materials referred to above and also the other materials if it would be produced by the petitioner. 8. In the result, this application is allowed.