Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 441 (JHR)

Jhandu Mahto v. Union of India

2014-03-31

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
Judgment This writ petition is preferred for quashing the order dated 16.4.2009 passed in O.A. No. 247 of 2002 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench in Ranchi, in and by which the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground of delay. 2.The mother of the petitioner, namely late Chepi Mahto, was a permanent employee of the 2nd respondent, the Central Fuel Research Institute( a Unit of CFRI ), who died while in service on 31.8.1999 leaving behind the petitioner as her only son. The petitioner thereafter applied for compassionate appointment in January, 2000 and an offer of appointment was issued on 26.5.2000. The petitioner submitted his joining on 20.6.2000. Since the date of birth of the petitioner differed, the documents were sent for verification. According to the petitioner, on noticing discrepancy in the date of birth, he approached Swatantra Bharat Vidyalaya (High School Bhaga), whereupon he was given fresh transfer certificate dated 28.6.2000 duly signed by the Headmaster of the High School and the petitioner submitted the same to the respondents; but the respondents without verifying the transfer certificate issued by the Swatantra Bharat Vidyalaya (High School Bhaga) dated 28.6.2000 and without any notice and show cause, restrained the petitioner from joining the work. 3. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner filed O.A. No.247 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench in Ranchi. The Tribunal vide order dated 16.4.2009 held that the mother of the petitioner died in the year 1999 and the family has survived during this period and in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union Bank of India vs. M.T. Lathees 2. [ (2006) 7 SCC 350 ]; State of J & K & ors. Vs. Sajad Ahmad Mir [ (2006) 5 SCC 766 ] and National Institute of Technology vs. Niraj Kuamr Singh [(2007) 1 SCC( L&S) 668], the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be given to the appellant after lapse of sufficient time of the death of employee. 4. Being aggrieved by dismissal of O.A. No.247 of 2002, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. We have heard Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Rajesh Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Central Fuel Research Institute. 6. 4. Being aggrieved by dismissal of O.A. No.247 of 2002, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. We have heard Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Rajesh Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Central Fuel Research Institute. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Original Application before the Tribunal was made even in the year 2000 and the same was disposed of in the year 2009. While so, the learned Tribunal was not right in saying that the application was belated one and that the family has survived during the period from the year 1999 till 2009 and, therefore there is no need to make appointment on compassionate ground. The learned counsel further submitted that earlier an offer of appointment was issued to the petitioner on 26.5.2000 and while so, without considering the documents produced by the petitioner, the authorities had restrained the petitioner from joining the work. In so far as discrepancy in the date of birth in the transfer certificate, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has obtained the transfer certificate originally from Swatantra Bharat Middle School, Bhaga; whereas the petitioner ought to have obtained the transfer certificate from Swatantra Bharat High School, Bhaga from which school the petitioner left in the year 1988 while studying in Class-IX. It was submitted that only had an opportunity been given to the petitioner by the authorities, the petitioner would have been in a position to explain this stand before the authorities and the learned Tribunal has not considered this aspect. 7. Mr. Rajesh Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Central Fuel Research Institute, has submitted that the reasons for restraining the petitioner from joining the work was already elaborately put forth in the counter affidavit filed before the learned Tribunal and while so the petitioner was not justified in contending that no opportunity of hearing was given to him. 8. As it is seen from the records that there was an offer of appointment no. 3-25/93-PL dated 26th May, 2000 issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to produce the following certificates : (i) Medical certificate of health and physical fitness; (ii)Documentary proof of date of birth and education qualification; (iii)Caste certificate, if any; (iv) Character certificate. 9. As it is seen from the records that there was an offer of appointment no. 3-25/93-PL dated 26th May, 2000 issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to produce the following certificates : (i) Medical certificate of health and physical fitness; (ii)Documentary proof of date of birth and education qualification; (iii)Caste certificate, if any; (iv) Character certificate. 9. Accepting the offer, the petitioner submitted his joining on 20.6.2000 and the petitioner produced the school leaving transfer certificate, wherein his date of birth was mentioned. According to the respondent-Central Fuel Research Institute, the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner was never issued by Swatantra Bharat Madhya Vidyalaya, Bhaga and to that effect the Headmaster of the School has also communicated. 10. In this regard, we find that CFRI does not seem to have considered the stand of the petitioner explaining the alleged discrepancy in his date of birth. We are of the view that the CFRI ought to have given opportunity to the petitioner to explain the alleged discrepancy in his date of birth. The Tribunal has not considered this aspect in proper perspective and simply dismissed the Original Application on the ground that the family was able to sustain from the year 1999 till 2009 and, therefore there is no need of compassionate appointment. We are unable to subscribe the view taken by the Tribunal and the order of the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the order of the learned Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 247 of 2002 dated 16.4.2009 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce the necessary documents within a period of four weeks to respondent no.3. On such documents being produced, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and pass a speaking order, in accordance with law.