Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 44 (JHR)

Naresh Manjhi v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

2017-01-06

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
ORDER Mr. Dr. S.N. Pathak, J. – Heard the parties. 2. The prayer has been made for appointment on compassionate ground and challenge has been made to the order dated 18.07.2013 by which case of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents-CCL. 3. Father of the petitioner was an employee of M/S Central Coal Fields Limited working as Pump Operator in Tapin Project , Ramgarh, who died in harness on 6.12.2006. After the death of his father, the petitioner filed an application before the respondent no.5 for his appointment on compassionate ground as per Rule annexing requisite documents and he has also filed Family Certificate issued by the B.D.O Charhi, Dist. Hazaribagh on 27.07.2007. The application of the petitioner was forwarded to respondent no.4 for appointment on compassionate ground and also forwarded the same to respondent no.3 with recommendation for employment of the petitioner. Mother of the petitioner already died in harness on 12.06.1998. After lapse of more than four years the respondent no.6 has issued letter dated 15/16.3.2010 that the application for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that the age of the petitioner has been found more than 35 years in the L.T.C. Hence, this writ application. 4. Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have arbitrarily rejected the case of the petitioner. Though from the service excerpt it is crystal clear that the age of the petitioner on 02.07.1987 was 10 years and on 2007, when the petitioner applied for job, the age of the petitioner was calculated less than 35 years i.e. 29 years 8 months 5 days and as such, the petitioner is eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. Mr. Bhaiya Vishwgvb ajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents-CCL vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner that both the documents shows different dates. In one of the documents the age of the petitioner is more than 35 years and in the second one, the service excerpt which is at Annexure 2, shows that the age of the petitioner is less than 35 years. In one of the documents the age of the petitioner is more than 35 years and in the second one, the service excerpt which is at Annexure 2, shows that the age of the petitioner is less than 35 years. There is dispute regarding the age of the petitioner and as per settled law and as per several decisions rendered by this Hon''ble Court the matter is remanded back to CCL for calculation of the age of the petitioner by the Apex Medical Board, as per Rule. 6. Needless to say that, if the Apex medical board comes to an opinion regarding the age of the petitioner as less than 35 years, appropriate step should be taken for issuance of letter of appointment on compassionate ground. If the medical board founds that the age of the petitioner is more than 35 years the case of the petitioner will be rejected and the same will be intimated to the petitioner. The entire exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observation, rules, guidelines and settled principles of law this writ petition is disposed of.