Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1 (JHR)

Baburam Manjhi v. CMD, Central Coalfields Ltd

2011-01-03

J.C.S.RAWAT

body2011
Order This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 11.5.2004 passed by the respondents by which the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected and he has further prayed that the respondents be directed to reconsider the matter and provide appointment to the petitioner whose father died-in-harness on 15.8.1998. 2. It is admitted to the parties that the petitioner's father namely Banaswar Manjhi, who was working as a mining labour under the respondent's Project died-in-harness on 15.8.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner, the son of the deceased Banaswar Manjhi filed an application in the year 1998 for his compassionate appointment under the "died-in-harness" scheme framed by the respondents. Ultimately, the petitioner's claim was rejected by the respondents saying that his name has not been mentioned in the documents relating to the deceased. Later on, the matter was again reconsidered by the respondents and by a subsequent communication dated 4.6.2004 (Annexure-F1 to the counter affidavit) communicated to the petitioner that the name of the petitioner was not kept in the live Roster for employment on attaining the age of majority and it was further communicated in the said order that the order, as indicated above, was wrongly communicated to him that his name did not find place in the relevant documents. The petitioner's appointment was ultimately refused by the respondents and, therefore, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the name of the petitioner has been shown in the service book of the deceased employee, as the son of the deceased and his age has been indicated as four years in the year 1987. Thus, the petitioner was about 15 years at the time of the death of his father. No date of birth has been indicated in the said Register. He further pointed out that the petitioner filed an application in the year 1998 alongwith his school leaving/ transfer certificate which is also annexed with the writ petition according to which the petitioner was above 18 years at the time of filing the application. So, he was entitled for compassionate appointment. He further pointed out that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the son of the deceased and the other member of his family had applied for employment under "died-in-harness" scheme. So, he was entitled for compassionate appointment. He further pointed out that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the son of the deceased and the other member of his family had applied for employment under "died-in-harness" scheme. Either way, either the petitioner would have been kept in the live Roster or he would have been given appointment to which he was eligible. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contention and contended that the school leaving certificate (Annexure-6) dated 30.5.1998 shows the date of birth of the petitioner as 21.4.1980 and he had completed the age of 18 years. According to the service record which was filed by his father, the age of the petitioner has been shown as 4 years at the relevant time. There is a gap of three years in both the dates given on the side of the petitioner and he did not apply for live Roster, rather, only for appointment being major under the rules. He further pointed out that he could not be given appointment in view of the said inconsistency. 5. After due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the son of the deceased who died while working under the respondents. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father was a mining labour under the respondents and the father of the petitioner was not qualified or a literate person as is evident from Annexure-7. It cannot be presumed from an illiterate person to give the actual date of birth at the time of his initial appointment and he had given the approximate age. The proof of his age is the document furnished by the petitioner at the time of filing his application. Until and unless the school leaving certificate (SLC) is challenged, it is a proof of age of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the respondents could not demonstrate that they have challenged the date of birth given in the said School Leaving Certificate by way of verification from other sources. Thus, either way, the petitioner was entitled to get appointment under the Scheme of the respondents as indicated in the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents could not demonstrate that they have challenged the date of birth given in the said School Leaving Certificate by way of verification from other sources. Thus, either way, the petitioner was entitled to get appointment under the Scheme of the respondents as indicated in the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that there is delay of 10 years initiating the writ petition since the date of death of the father of the petitioner and the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the contention advanced on behalf of the respondents and contended that the application was submitted immediately after the death of the deceased, the father of the petitioner and thus there was no delay on the part of the petitioner to submit the application and in fact, the delay is attributable to the respondents who slept over the matter for six years and passed an order only in the year 2004 on the application of the petitioner. The petitioner was running from pillar to post to seek appointment and again he is being blamed by the respondents who were sleeping over the application and saying that the petitioner is guilty of laches. 8. After going through the entire records, it is revealed that though the petitioner had promptly filed his application, no order was passed by the respondents till the year 2004 and as soon as rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment was made, he preferred this writ petition before this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents could not demonstrate that any order was passed in between 1998 to 2004 by the respondents on the application filed by the petitioner. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made above and it is needless to say that after his case is considered favourably by the respondents, the petitioner be given appointment expeditiously, preferably within four months thereafter.