Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1089 (JHR)

Jamuni Kumari v. Central Coalfields Limited

2011-12-12

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2011
JUDGMENT This application has been filed for quashing Annexure-3, whereby the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected because her name was not kept in live roster. 2. It appears that petitioner's mother Late Mangari Devi died in course of her employment on 13.02.2003. At the time of her death, petitioner was aged about 16 years. Thus, at that time, she was not entitled for compassionate appointment as she was minor. It then appears that after attaining the age of majority, she applied on 17.10.2008, but her application was rejected by Annexure-3, on the ground that there is no provision in NCWA for keeping name of daughter in live roster. 3. This Court vide order dated 09.08.2011 in W.P.(S) No. 1048 of 2011 in Urmila Marandi Vs. Central Coalfields Limited & Others, after considering a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coalfields Limited & Others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549 , has quashed a similar order, passed by Central Coalfields Limited and directed the respondents to reconsider the case of petitioner of that case. 4. From perusal of aforesaid judgment, I find that a similar plea was considered by this Court and it is held that : “ ............ for the reason that respondent being “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, cannot discriminate petitioner on the ground of sex. If the male legal heir is entitled to employment, upon attaining age of majority equally, female legal heir is entitled to compassionate appointment, upon attaining the age of majority. As per Article 16 of the Constitution of India, discrimination on the ground of race, religion, sex, caste, place of birth is not permissible. 5. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, in my view, the order passed by the respondents (Annexure-3) is wholly illegal and arbitrary as Central Coalfields Limited being an 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is expected to act fairly, reasonably and in bonafide manner. Since, aforesaid decision is binding on respondent, therefore, it is expected from it to follow the same in all subsequent cases. 6. In view of discussions made above, this application is allowed and the impugned order (Annexure-3) is hereby quashed. Since, aforesaid decision is binding on respondent, therefore, it is expected from it to follow the same in all subsequent cases. 6. In view of discussions made above, this application is allowed and the impugned order (Annexure-3) is hereby quashed. The respondent-Company is directed to reconsider the matter of petitioner and pass necessary order on her application for compassionate appointment within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this oder.