Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1108 (JHR)

Milan Kumar v. Central Coalfields Limited

2014-11-13

D.N.PATEL, VIRENDER SINGH

body2014
Judgment : Per Virender Singh, C.J: Appellant is the writ petitioner (herein after to be referred to as the ‘writ petitioner’ only). His father, namely, Sebat Ram, who was employed as a Coal Cutter Category IX with the respondents, died in harness on 15.10.2002. After the death of his father, his real brother applied for compassionate appointment in January, 2003 but the same was rejected on the ground of overage. It is thereafter the petitioner applied for his appointment on 27.11.2003, on which, no decision was taken by the respondents for long four years, which constrained him to knock at the door of writ Court through the medium of W.P.(S) No. 4374 of 2007 seeking direction to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate grounds, which plea was resisted by the respondents in its counter affidavit, inter alia, on the grounds that his claim was rejected as far back as on 16.03.2004 being belated one filed after more than one year and that the order was also communicated to him by registered post with A/D. The learned writ Court vide judgment/order dated 26.02.2008 has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of suppression of fact vis-a-vis the rejection of his claim by the respondents. The petitioner being aggrieved of said judgment has moved this Court through the instant Letters Patent Appeal, in which, there was 305 days delay, which already stands condoned. 2. When the case was taken up on 11th November, 2014 for admission, Mr. Shastri, learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn attention of the Court to a Circular No. PD/MP/9.3.2./Circular/03 dated 19th June, 2003 issued by respondent (annexed as Annexure 5 with the supplementary affidavit taken on record), according to which the time limit for submission of application for compassionate appointment has been extended from one year to one and half years and it would be effective from 27.11.2002. On the strength of aforesaid Circular, Mr. Shastri stated that rejection of the application of the petitioner on 16.03.2004 on the ground that it was made after one year was contrary to the aforesaid circular issued by the respondents. 3. A specific query was put to Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondents as to whether the case of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected merely on ground of limitation or any other ground as well, Mr. 3. A specific query was put to Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondents as to whether the case of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected merely on ground of limitation or any other ground as well, Mr. Sen before making a categoric statement in this regard sought time to go through the records, which was not available to him on last date of hearing i.e. 11.11.2014, as such the consideration of the present appeal was deferred and taken up today. 4. Mr. Sen, after verifying the facts stated that the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected solely on ground of delay. He, when confronted with his own Circular dated 19.06.2003 whereby the time limit for moving application of the dependents for compassionate appointment was extended from one year to one and half years, is unable to wriggle out of that. Being that the fact situation on the case on hand, it appears to us that the order dated 16.03.2004 of rejection of appointment of the writ petitioner is not sustainable. 5. We are conscious of the fact that the petitioner was apprised of the rejection of his application as is the stand of the respondent in its counter affidavit which fact is not mentioned admittedly in the writ petition and he simply sought direction of his appointment on compassionate grounds taking the plea of delay of consideration on his application moved by him on 27.11.2003, but all these facts pale into insignificance, for the reason that the ground of rejection of the application by the respondent was not available to the respondent in terms of their own Circular referred to herein above. Had the respondent rejected the case of the petitioner on other grounds as well, perhaps we would have not shown indulgence in the instant appeal. Therefore, if the case of the petitioner is not reconsidered by the respondent for compassionate appointment, it would cause grave prejudice to him. 6. Keeping in view the aforenarrated facts of the present case, we hereby set aside the impugned judgment/order of learned writ Court and direct respondents to reconsider the application of the petitioner moved by him way back on 27.11.2003 for compassionate appointment, undoubtedly within parameters of the Rules in vogue. 7. 6. Keeping in view the aforenarrated facts of the present case, we hereby set aside the impugned judgment/order of learned writ Court and direct respondents to reconsider the application of the petitioner moved by him way back on 27.11.2003 for compassionate appointment, undoubtedly within parameters of the Rules in vogue. 7. Since the matter has already been delayed considerably, let this exercise be carried out now within four weeks only from the date, copy of the order is made available to the respondent, which shall primarily be the responsibility of the writ petitioner. However, Mr. Sen also volunteers to convey the order without any delay. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.