Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 920 (JHR)

Narayan Das v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

2017-06-13

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Rajesh Shankar, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground under the provisions of Clause 9.3.2 of National Coal Wage Agreement-VI (hereinafter referred to as "NCWA-VI"). 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the father of the petitioner was in service of respondent No. 1 (CCL) since 16.03.1973 and he was posted as Piece-Rated Mazdoor at C.P. Siding of 26 No. Incline of Giridih Project under the respondent no. 4. During the service period, the father of the petitioner fell ill, who ultimately died in harness on 10.09.2003. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner applied for her compassionate appointment on 17.10.2003, but since she had already attained 52 years of age and was physically weak, she and other dependants in the family nominated the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment with all the details as per rules, but no action was taken by the respondent-CCL leading to filing of the present writ petition. 4. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent-CCL brought on record letter no. 3073 dated 22.08.2009 issued under the signature of the Deputy General Manager (P&IR), CCL, Ranchi (Annexure-OA to the supplementary Counter affidavit dated 24.08.2009), whereby the claim of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment was rejected. The petitioner sought to challenge the said letter no. 3073 dated 22.08.2009 by filing I.A. No. 2289 of 2009 which was allowed by this Court and the petitioner was permitted to challenge the said letter dated 22.08.2009. 5. The main ground of rejection of the petitioner''s claim for compassionate appointment as appears from perusal of impugned letter dated 22.08.2009 is that the age of the petitioner on the date of death of his father i.e., on 10.09.2003 was 38 years and on the date of making application for compassionate appointment i.e., on 15.04.2004, his age was 38 years and 7 months. The said age was assessed as per the declaration made by the father of the petitioner in his "Service Sheet Excerpt" and "LTC Option Form". The said age was assessed as per the declaration made by the father of the petitioner in his "Service Sheet Excerpt" and "LTC Option Form". As per the relevant provisions of NCWA-VI, a person above 35 years of age cannot be offered compassionate appointment and since the age of the petitioner on the date of death of his father was 38 years, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was turned down. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was an illiterate person and as such, it would not be expected from him to declare exact age of his children while making entries in the relevant official documents. It is further submitted that at the time of scrutiny of the application for compassionate appointment, the petitioner also produced his School Leaving Certificate (SLC), Driving Licence etc. in support of his claim that his actual date of birth is 01.01.1980 and, therefore, the age of the petitioner was about 24 years on the date of submission of his application for compassionate appointment. Thus, the respondents have committed serious illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment. 7. Per contra, Mr. B.V. Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent-CCL submits that in the "Service Sheet Excerpt", the age of the petitioner was declared as 22 years as on 01.04.1987 and as per "LTC Option Form", his age was declared as 18 years as on 01.12.1983 and, therefore, on the date of submission of application for compassionate appointment, i.e., on 15.04.2004, the petitioner had already crossed the age limit of 35 years. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the father of the petitioner died on 10.09.2003, whereas the driving licence of the petitioner was issued in the year 2004 and the birth certificate was issued on 31.03.2009, i.e., after the death of petitioner''s father and, hence, the same can only be said to be an afterthought and, thus, cannot be relied upon. Moreover, the School Leaving Certificate is of below Matric (Board) level and as such, the same cannot be taken into consideration in support of the age proof of the petitioner. Moreover, the School Leaving Certificate is of below Matric (Board) level and as such, the same cannot be taken into consideration in support of the age proof of the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner also appears to be a doubtful document, as it was found during the enquiry that the school from which the said School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner was issued, was only a Middle School and not an Upgraded Middle School in the year 1988 as written in the said School Leaving Certificate. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondent authorities after due application of mind passed the impugned order vide letter no. 3073 dated 22.08.2009 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment finding his age to be more than 38 years on the date of filing of application for compassionate appointment. 8. Considering the rival submissions made on behalf of the learned counsels for the parties and after going through all the relevant documents placed on record, it appears that as per the declaration made by the father of the petitioner in the "Service Sheet Excerpt'', the age of the petitioner was 22 years as on 01.04.1987 and as per the "LTC Option Form", his age was declared as 18 years as on 01.12.1983. On the other hand, the claim of the petitioner is that as per his School Leaving Certificate and Driving Licence, his actual date of birth is 01.01.1980 and, therefore, the age of the petitioner was about 24 years on the date of submission of the application for compassionate appointment i.e., on 15.04.2004. 9. On comparative analysis of the rival claims made by the parties, it transpires that there is a huge variance of about 15 years in the age of the petitioner. Even if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that the father of the petitioner being an illiterate employee, his declaration regarding the age of the petitioner in the "Service Sheet Excerpt" and other forms may not have the accuracy and it should be considered liberally, yet it is not possible to have a huge variance of 15 years in the rival claims, as has happened in the present case. Moreover, all the documents on which the petitioner has relied upon in support of his date of birth to be 01.01.1980, have been issued after the death of the father of the petitioner except the School Leaving Certificate, the authenticity of which has been seriously disputed by the respondents. 10. This Court had the occasion to consider the similar issue in case of " Raj Kumar Nayak @ Raj Kumar v. Central Coalfields Limited & Ors." [W.P.(S) No. 7391 of 2016] and on considering the serious dispute regarding the rival claims of age between the employee and the management of C.C.L., refrained from entering into the factual dispute between the parties and the said writ petition was dismissed. 11. So far as the present case is concerned, there is a huge variance of about 15 years in the age of the petitioner as per the rival claims of the parties and, therefore, the contention made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted that on the date of submission of application for compassionate appointment, his age was 24 years. Moreover, there is no reason to disbelieve the declarations made by the father of the petitioner in the "Service Sheet Excerpt", which is a statutory record as well as the "LTC Option Form" in which the age of the petitioner was declared as 22 years as on 01.04.1987 and 18 years as on 01.12.1983 respectively and considering the said age, the petitioner had crossed the age limit of 35 years on the date of filing of the application for compassionate appointment i.e., on 15.04.2004. The respondents have duly considered the said factual aspect and have issued impugned letter no. 3073 dated 22.08.2009 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that he had attained more than 38 years of age on the date of filing of the application. 12. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned letter no. 3073 dated 22.08.2009. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.