Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1503 (JHR)

Sahzad Alam v. Central Coalfield Limited

2016-10-28

S.N.PATHAK

body2016
ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the letter contained in reference no.PO/GW/P/9.3.0/16 dated 05.04.2016 whereby the petitioner has been disqualified for the compassionate appointment on the ground that the age of the petitioner is more than 35 years. 3. The factual exposition, as has been delineated in the writ petition, is that the father of the petitioner was appointed on 27.04.1994 under respondent no.1 on the post of P.R. Grade-III, who died in harness on 30.10.2014. Thereafter, petitioner's mother had informed the respondent no.3 regarding the death of her husband on 06.11.2014. Subsequently, the petitioner had made an application on 01.01.2015 for his employment on the ground of compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to appear with all the required documents before the Committee on 04.02.2015 alongwith all the family members. All the family members have given consent for appointment. Unit level Screening Committee-respondent no.4 forwarded all the relevant documents of the petitioner including affidavit to the Staff Officer, Sirka on 27.07.2015 for considering employment of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Assistant Manager (Personnel) Giddi Washery was directed to appear before the Area Screening Committee alongwith all the relevant documents. As per the respondents there was discrepancy in the age of the petitioner and thereafter it was referred to Medical Board and the Medical Board after examining age of the petitioner came to a finding as 37½ years on 23.12.2015 for considering employment of the petitioner in view of which the petitioner was informed that he is more than 35 years and as such his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the rejection, the petitioner preferred this writ petition for the aforesaid reliefs. 5. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's educational certificate as well as birth certificate was issued by the Department of Planning and Development, Government of Jharkhand wherein his date of birth has been mentioned as 12.12.1996 which is annexed as Annexure-10 with this writ petition and it has also been stated that certificate has been issued after proper verification. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after going through relevant documents and verifying the same, the certificate has been issued by the competent authority on 17.12.2014. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after going through relevant documents and verifying the same, the certificate has been issued by the competent authority on 17.12.2014. 6. On the other hand, Mr. H.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL, vehemently opposed the contention of the petitioner and submitted that age of the petitioner was considered by the Medical Board and after examination it came to a finding that petitioner is more than 35 years i.e. 37½years and as such the case does not come within the ambit of N.C.W.A. Rule 9.4.0 which is annexed as Annexure-C. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the certificate issued by the competent authority, the petitioner's age was 35 years when the application was made on 31.12.2014 and he belongs to B.C.I category and as such considering the age certificate issued by the competent authority, the case sought to have been considered by the competent authorities for appointment on compassionate ground. 8. After considering the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, it transpires that the birth certificate of the petitioner has been issued by the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand. Going through the certificate, it is found that said certificate has been issued after proper verification and the age mentioned in the certificate is 12.12.1986 and the date of registration is 17.12.2014 which was issued much prior to the constitution of Medical Board. 9. In view of the fact that the certificate was issued after proper verification by the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand, there was no occasion to disbelieve the certificate and the age assessed by the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand unless the said certificate is cancelled by a proper verification and enquiry by the competent authority and as such there was no occasion to disbelieve the same. The assessment of age by the Medical Board cannot be taken to be a gospel truth and cannot be accepted in view of the certificate issued by the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand. 10. I am of the considered view that the State of Jharkhand issued the age certificate/birth certificate showing the age which is much less than the required age. The case of the petitioner deserves to be considered by the respondent-authorities. 11. 10. I am of the considered view that the State of Jharkhand issued the age certificate/birth certificate showing the age which is much less than the required age. The case of the petitioner deserves to be considered by the respondent-authorities. 11. As accumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement, I hereby, quash the letter contained in reference no.PO/GW/P/9.3.0/16 dated 05.04.2016 and direct the respondent authority-CCL for considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of three months after receipt of the order and further if the case of the petitioner is found fit for appointment, his appointment letter should be issued within a period of 1½ months. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.