Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1112 (JHR)

Geda Pahan v. Central Coalfields Limited

2013-09-26

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for grant of appointment on compassionate ground in terms of para 9.3.2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI and any other regulation/proceeding. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. Mr. R.R. Ravi Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the father of the petitioner was employed with the respondent-company, who was posted at Pindra Colliery and died on 28.07.2007, the petitioner was not granted appointment on the compassionate ground. The father of the petitioner was employed on Class-IV post and the petitioner also seeks appointment on Class-IV post only. The mother of the petitioner has already died on 15.10.2003. Since the petitioner was not granted appointment on compassionate ground the petitioner has approached this court. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed denying the claim of the petitioner, stating as under : 9. “That in reply to the statement made in para 5 of the writ application, under reply, it is stated that the petitioner was an employee of Pindra Colliery of M/s CCL and he was allotted with Form-B. No.712. 10. That in reply to the statement made in para 6 of the writ application, under reply, it is stated that the father of the petitioner since deceased died on 28.07.2007 in harness as per the death certificate issued by Panchayat Sewak Gram Panchayat, Rabodh. That according to the family details enlisted in the Service Sheet Excerpts, following are the details of the dependents family members :- (i) Smt. Somari Devi, wife of deceased employee. (ii) Shri Jagdish Pahan (iii) Sri Banu Pahan (iv) Sri Geda Pahan (v) Sri Kaleshwar Pahan {(ii) to (v) all sons of deceased employee}. 11. That in reply to the statement made in para 7 of the writ application, under reply, it is stated that the mother of the petitioner namely Somari Devi died on 15.10.2003 prior to the death of father of the petitioner as per the Death Certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Rabodh. 12. That in reply to the statement made in para 8 of the writ application, under reply, it is stated that the petitioner has not submitted any application and he has never prayed for filling up application form in the prescribed form as claimed. 13. 12. That in reply to the statement made in para 8 of the writ application, under reply, it is stated that the petitioner has not submitted any application and he has never prayed for filling up application form in the prescribed form as claimed. 13. That in reply to the statement made in para 9 of the writ application, under reply, it is stated that the petitioner's father died in harness leaving behind four sons namely Shri Geda Pahan, Shri Jagdish Pahan, Shri Banu Pahan and Shri Kaleshwar Pahan. 14. That in reply to the statement made in para 10 of the writ application, under reply, it is stated that the petitioner has never requested for filling up the prescribed application for employment into the Company. The claim that the Respondent Company has not filled up the prescribed form in totally false. The claim of the petitioner that he has submitted his application dated 07.11.2008, 18.02.2010 and 20.06.2011 before the respondent no. 5 i.e. the Project Officer, Pindra Colliery is totally false and not based on record of the Company. In support of the claim, the petitioner has enclosed the copy of the application marked as Annexure-5 to the writ application. It is further stated that on examination of the case and perusal of the contents of the application, it is noticed that there is no proof of any receipt of the application in the office of the respondent no.5, nor there is any receiving of the applications to the office of project Officer, Pindra Colliery, therefore the claim is not tenable. It appears that the application has been drafted by the same person in a single sitting therefore handwriting is common in all the application and does not bear the receipt number of the office concerned. Therefore the claim of the petitioner is baseless.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is admittedly the dependent and legal heir of the late Nema Pahan. They are poor persons and the father of the petitioner was working on a Class-IV post and therefore, there is no reason why the petitioner would not have submitted his claim for appointment on compassionate ground. He has submitted that the petitioner infact submitted his representations with the respondent authority on 07.11.2008, 18.02.2010 and 20.06.2011 however, the Respondent No. 5 has not decided the claim of the petitioner. 6. He has submitted that the petitioner infact submitted his representations with the respondent authority on 07.11.2008, 18.02.2010 and 20.06.2011 however, the Respondent No. 5 has not decided the claim of the petitioner. 6. As against this, Ms. Warda Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that a specific stand has been taken by the respondents that the representation as alleged in the writ petition allegedly submitted to the respondent No. 5, has not been received in the office of the respondent No. 5. Infact the petitioner has not filled up and submitted the requisite Form which is required to be filled up for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. She has further submitted that since the father of the petitioner died on 28.07.2007 and therefore, after a lapse of more than 6 years, the petitioner cannot be granted appointment on compassionate ground. She has also submitted that there are 3 other persons in the family of the petitioner and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that after the death of his father, the family went into distress is not believable and therefore, petitioner cannot be granted appointment on compassionate ground, more particularly, in view of the fact, that the petitioner has not disclosed his financial status. 7. On a consideration of the materials on record it would appear that, it is an admitted fact that the father of the petitioner was employed with the respondent-company and he died on 28.07.2007. The father of the petitioner was employed on Class-IV post and therefore, it does not require any further proof of poverty of the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner has 3 more members in the family, would not be a sufficient ground for drawing inference that the petitioner is well-off and he has been taken care of by the other members of the family. The petitioner is seeking employment on Class-IV post. The respondents have not denied the fact that the petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased namely, Nema Pahan and it has not been disputed by the respondents that the petitioner is other-wise eligible. 8. The petitioner is seeking employment on Class-IV post. The respondents have not denied the fact that the petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased namely, Nema Pahan and it has not been disputed by the respondents that the petitioner is other-wise eligible. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the claim for appointment on Class-IV post, on compassionate ground should not be denied on mere technicalities, rather the effort of the respondents should be to extend the benefits to the members of the deceased employee's family who have suffered loss of the bread earner of the family. He has further submitted that recently also, the respondent-company and other coal companies resolved to re-open the cases decided even prior to the year, 1995. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that even though the representation submitted by the petitioner as alleged in the writ petition is not traceable in the record of the respondent-company, the claim of the petitioner should be decided by the respondents in view of the financial state of the petitioner. This writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No. 3 to grant opportunity to the petitioner who would submit relevant documents including the documents indicating his financial status. The petitioner would be at liberty to move representation before the authorities within the period of six weeks from today. Representation of the petitioner would be decided within the next twelve weeks by a reasoned order duly communicated to the petitioner. The writ is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Petition disposed of.