Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 199 (JHR)

Rohit Kumar v. Central Coalfields Ltd

2012-02-07

P.P.BHATT

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. 3. Learned counsel for the State waves service of rule. 4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing. 5. By way of filing this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the purpose of giving employment on compassionate ground. According to the petitioner, his father while serving with the respondent-company, died in harness on 10.05.2001. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner requested the respondent-company to give the benefit of compassionate appointment to her son, Rohit Kumar i.e. the petitioner by submitting an application dated 19.2.2002. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent company vide communication dated 09.05.2003 only on the ground that the application for getting compassionate appointment was submitted after one year and eight months that is beyond the time limit prescribed for making such application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mother of the petitioner made the application well within time. She being an illiterate widow could not applied in a prescribed formate at the first instance. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered in light of the judgment reported in 2003 (1) JCR 324. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-company submitted that the application for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner cannot be considered in view of the norms set out by the Company. It is further submitted that so-called application submitted by the mother of the petitioner on 09.02.2002 is disputed by the company, moreover, the said application was not submitted in a prescribed format and the same was also not submitted within the prescribed time limit and, therefore, the case of the petitioner was rejected. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that in view of the observation made by this High Court in WP(S) No. 6589 of 2002, the respondent company decided to give relaxation in the period for submitting the application and accordingly, vide circular dated 19.3.2005, the permissible period for submission of application for employment by the dependent of a deceased employee under the provisions of NCWA was extended from 12 months to 18 months. The case of the applicant was not considered as the application was filed after more than one year and eight months and therefore, the case of the petitioner has been rejected. 8. Considering the aforementioned rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 10th May, 2001 and according to the petitioner, his mother submitted an application by enclosing the required certificates vide Annexure-2 on 19th February, 2002 and requested the Project Officer of the respondent company to grant the benefit by giving compassionate appointment to her son, Rohit Kumar i.e. the petitioner. However, this fact has been disputed by the respondent company and rejected the claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the application for compassionate appointment was submitted after one year and eight months and therefore, it is not permissible as per the norms of the respondent company. 9. I have perused the judgment reported in 2003(1) JCR 324, the order passed in WPS No. 4266/2002 and the judgments reported in 2009(1) JLJR 352 and 2009(2) JLJR 94 , this Court has taken lenient view in respect of compassionate appointment and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by ignoring the technicalities such as delay in filing the application and the application not submitted in prescribed format. As per observation made in the aforesaid judgments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the case of the petitioner can be considered in the light of the circular issued by the respondent- company dated 19.5.2005 as the time limit for submitting the application under the provision of NCWA has been extended from 12 months to 18 months, therefore, considering that time limit, the delay in submitting the application for compassionate appointment is only two months. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application at the first instance was submitted by his mother well within time. Of course the said application was not submitted in the prescribed format. Moreover, the respondents have disputed this fact. However in the light of Judgment referred herein above request for compassionate appointment can not be rejected on such technicalities otherwise, the purpose of compassionate employment will be frustrated; the main purpose of such scheme is extended to immediate benefit to support the family members of the deceased employee. Moreover, the respondents have disputed this fact. However in the light of Judgment referred herein above request for compassionate appointment can not be rejected on such technicalities otherwise, the purpose of compassionate employment will be frustrated; the main purpose of such scheme is extended to immediate benefit to support the family members of the deceased employee. In the present case, the father of the petitioner had served the respondent company for more than 20 years and, therefore, the case of the petitioners deserves to be considered sympathetically without entering into the technicalities. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, order dated 9.5.2003 regarding rejection of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment mainly on the ground of delay in submitting the application is set aside with a direction to the respondent-company to re-consider the case of the petitioner for giving compassionate appointment within three months from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs