Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 585 (JHR)

Lakhan Kumar v. C. C. L.

2011-07-01

N.N.TIWARI

body2011
ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.10.2005 (Annexure-9), whereby the respondents have rejected the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate ground. 2. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground after the death of his father late Surjan Munda and the mother-Bachni Devi. It has been stated that his father died in harness on 23.11.1997. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was aged about 15 years 7 months and 22 days. After the death of his father, petitioner requested the respondents for keeping his name in the live roster in accordance with the provision of Para 9.5.0(III) of NCWA-VI. On attaining majority, he submitted application for employment on 29.3.2001. When no order was passed on the said application, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2352 of 2004. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application within three months. The respondents, thereafter, passed order rejecting the claim of the petitioner as time barred. The petitioner challenged the said rejection order in W.P.(S) No. 5291 of 2004. The said writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner then preferred appeal against the said order in the Division Bench of this Court being L.P.A. No. 780 of 2004. The said L.P.A. was disposed of directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for employment commensurate with his qualifications, if he is otherwise eligible, within three months. When the order was not passed within the prescribed period, the petitioner moved for contempt in Cont.(C) Case No. 53 of 2007. In the meanwhile, the respondents passed the order rejecting the petitioner's claim again. The contempt case was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge that order. 3. In the instant case, the petitioner has challenged the said order dated 19.10.2005. It has been submitted that the impugned order is wholly illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provision of Para 9.5.0(III) of NCWA-VI. Since the petitioner was aged about 15 years 7 months and 22 days at the time of death of his father, his claim falls within the said provision of. NCWA-VI. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents opposing the petitioner's claim and stating, inter alia. that the petitioner's claim is time barred. Since the petitioner was aged about 15 years 7 months and 22 days at the time of death of his father, his claim falls within the said provision of. NCWA-VI. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents opposing the petitioner's claim and stating, inter alia. that the petitioner's claim is time barred. The petitioner for the first time applied for compassionate appointment at Unit level on 29.3.2001 disclosing his age as 18 years on that date. He had applied after expiry of more than three years from the date of death of his father. He was less than 15 years of age on the date of death of his father. It has been stated that the provision of Para 9.5.0 of NCWA-V1 clearly provides that the male dependant of the deceased workman will be kept in the live roster only when his age is 15 years and above. Since the petitioner's age was less than 15 years on the date of death of his father, the said provision is not applicable to him. The petitioner, therefore, has got no valid claim for compassionate appointment. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts and materials on records. The petitioner has claimed compassionate appointment on the ground that he was entitled for the same under the provision of Para 9.5.0(III) of NCWA-VI. On perusal of the said paragraph, I find that in case of death of an employee, if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 15 years and above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. The respondents have not denied the said provision, but have contended that since the petitioner's age was not 15 years on the date of death of his father, the said provision is not applicable to him. No reply has been made by the petitioner to meet the said contentions of the respondents. The petitioner has rather shown a subsequent amendment in the provision as the basis of his claim. On going through the said amended provision. I find that the period of 15 years has been reduced to 12 years. No reply has been made by the petitioner to meet the said contentions of the respondents. The petitioner has rather shown a subsequent amendment in the provision as the basis of his claim. On going through the said amended provision. I find that the period of 15 years has been reduced to 12 years. The said provision is said to be made effective from 1.1.2000 whereas petitioner' father died long ago in 1997. In that view, the petitioner's claim does not fall within the amended provision. The respondents have recorded speaking reason, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate appointment as his claim is time barred. I find no illegality and arbitrariness in the impugned order. 6. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.