Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1818 (JHR)

Bigan Kolh v. Central Coalfield Limited

2017-10-30

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
ORDER Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to constitute a Medical Board for assessing the age of the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 13.08.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) no. 3878 of 2010. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 06.02.2013 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ petition, are that earlier the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) no. 3878 of 2010, which was disposed of vide order 13.08.2012 with a direction to treat the writ petition as a representation along with its annexures and decide the claims made in the writ petition in accordance with law, rules, regulations, policies and Government enforceable orders applicable to the petitioner, as is evident from annexure-1 to the writ petition. In deference to the aforesaid direction, the petitioner submitted his representation on 12.09.2012 and the same was rejected vide order dated 06.02.2013 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), which is impugned in this writ petition. 3. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents mis-interpreting the order passed by this Court dated 13.08.2012 in W.P.(S) no. 3878 of 2010 have rejected the claim of the petitioner on legally untenable ground without taking into consideration the school certificate, which is a conclusive proof of age. Learned counsel further submits that the action of the respondents No. 2 amounts to violation of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. During course of hearing, learned counsel has referred to rejoinder/reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, wherein it has been submitted that the ground of turning down the claim of the petitioner is because of crossing the age of 35 years at the time of death of his father, as per service excerpts of the ex-employee. It has been further submitted that since the father of the petitioner was illiterate person, therefore, the petitioner is relying on other relevant documents like voter ID Card, School Leaving Certificate etc. By referring to the educational certificate, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the said certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner was 16.04.1982 and that certificate has been issued prior to the death of his father i.e. 24.04.2007. By referring to the educational certificate, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the said certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner was 16.04.1982 and that certificate has been issued prior to the death of his father i.e. 24.04.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the very purpose of appointment on compassionate ground has been defeated in view of impugned order vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 4. Controverting the averment made in the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents, wherein it has been submitted that the petitioner''s father late Rameshwar Kolh, who was posted as Trammer Cat-III in Kuju Colliery, died on 17.12.2007. Thereafter the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground, which was received in the prescribed format on 05.04.2008 by the respondent-Company. It has been further submitted that during life time of the deceased employee, the age of the petitioner was recorded as 15 years on 24.03.1987 by the father of the petitioner, as per the service excerpts annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. As per the declaration of the father of the petitioner, the age of the petitioner to be 15 years on 24.03.1987. The age of the petitioner on the date of seeking employment on compassionate ground would be more than 35 years and hence prayer for compassionate appointment was turned down. It has been further submitted that in compliance of the order dated 13.08.2012 passed in W.P. (S) NO. 3878 of 2010, the respondents had convened a meeting with the petitioner, who was called for hearing on the point of assessment of his age. However, from the service excerpts of the deceased father of the petitioner, the age of the petitioner was 15 years as on 24.03.1987 and his age at the time of death of his father was more than 35 years and constitution of Medical Board was not found to be necessary. Therefore, there is no ground to entertain the prayer made by the petitioner at this belated stage. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and .3. Therefore, there is no ground to entertain the prayer made by the petitioner at this belated stage. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and .3. on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 06.02.2013 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) nor inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner for a direction on the respondents for appointment on compassionate ground in view of unimpeachable overwhelming documents, as has been annexed to the counter affidavit. Apart from that, from the date of death of the father of the petitioner, almost one decade has elapsed. The very purpose of giving appointment on compassionate ground is to tide over the financial hardship. Due to efflux of time, the purpose has paled into insignificance. Moreover, on perusal of the impugned order dated 06.02.2013 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), it appears that the case of the petitioner could not have been considered for appointment on compassionate ground being overage. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the aforesaid impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.