Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 426 (JHR)

Murty Devi v. Central Coal Fields Ltd.

2013-04-02

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner's husband had died on 19.9.2002 and she made an application for compassionate appointment on 17.2.2003 within stipulated one year period vide Circular dated 1.1.2002. However, the said application was not found to be in order lacking necessary credentials of the petitioner showing her to be the nominee or the legal heir of the deceased employee. When the petitioner finally made an application in proper format on 19.12.2003 vide Annexure-5, it was found to be delayed by two months from the stipulated one year period for making such application. This is the ground for not entertaining the petitioner's application. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that such technicalities have been deprecated by this Court in the matter of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment in the case of Ravinder Kumar Vs. Central Coal Field Limited through its Chairman, Darbhanga House, Ranchi & Ors., reported in [2009 (2) JLJ 32], decided on 11.2.2009. 4. Counsel for the respondent C.C.L on the other hand contests the claim of the petitioner for consideration of compassionate appointment on the ground that her application made on 19.12.2003 containing necessary particulars and credentials as well as testimonials was time barred and the original application made on 17.2.2003 lacked necessary details as also the supporting documents showing herself as the nominee or legal heir of the deceased employee. 5. Be that as it may, the facts, which are on record and have been indicated herein above, show that the petitioner had made an application within time of one year from the date of death of her husband on 19.09.2002 by 17.2.2003. The petitioner being a widow, in such circumstances, can hardly be saddled with the objections of technicalities while making an application in proper format containing necessary credentials/testimonials in support of her claim, as has been sought to be made out by the respondent C.C.L. The application made on 19.12.2003 in a proper format containing necessary credentials and testimonials had not been entertained only on the sole ground that it is now time barred. In these circumstances, the respondents are not justified in not entertaining the claim of the compassionate appointment though the petitioner had originally made such an application on 17.2.2003 itself. 6. In these circumstances, the respondents are not justified in not entertaining the claim of the compassionate appointment though the petitioner had originally made such an application on 17.2.2003 itself. 6. Accordingly, the respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with rules and guidelines as also the circulars including the National Coal Wage Agreement in vogue at the relevant point of time and the petitioner fulfilling all necessary criteria relating to compassionate appointment including that she is the nominee or legal heir of the deceased employee. Let the said exercise be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. This writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.