Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1929 (JHR)

Nandlal Kumar Mahto v. Central Coalfields Limited

2018-08-23

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 12.06.2018 by which his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that it was submitted beyond one and half years from the date of death of the ex-employee. 2. Petitioner''s father namely, Baijnath Mahto was a permanent employee under the respondent-M/s Central Coalfields Limited. He who was employed as "Pump Operator" Cat.-IV at Pundi Project, Kujju Area died in harness on 11.09.2014. On the application of his mother seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner''s elder brother, his age was verified by the Medical Board on 23.12.2015 and finding that he had already crossed the maximum age for employment under the respondent-M/s Central Coalfields Limited, that is, 35 years, the application seeking compassionate appointment for him was rejected on 12.03.2016. The petitioner has asserted, and the respondents have not denied, that on 12.03.2016 itself his mother has submitted a representation now for his compassionate appointment. At that time, that is, on 12.03.2016 the petitioner was aged about 21 years. He was also called for his age assessment by the Medical Board on 23.07.2016, however, when he did not receive further communication, compelled, he has come to the Court. 3. During pendency of the writ petition by the impugned order dated 12.06.2018 application for his appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground of delay. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to order dated 10.04.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.3709 of 2017 to contend that in view of orders passed by this Court the impugned order dated 12.06.2018 is not only arbitrary, it must be held illegal. 5. On the question of delay in submitting the application for compassionate appointment, it is pertinent to record that the application for compassionate appointment for the petitioner''s brother was submitted within time and the cause of action for submitting a fresh application arose only on 12.03.2016 when his elder brother was declared unfit for appointment on the ground of over-age. On the same day his mother has submitted another application now for the petitioner''s appointment on compassionate ground. In the first place, for the purpose of counting the period of limitation this application must be treated as an application submitted on 06.11.2014 itself, or at least in continuation to the previous application. 6. On the same day his mother has submitted another application now for the petitioner''s appointment on compassionate ground. In the first place, for the purpose of counting the period of limitation this application must be treated as an application submitted on 06.11.2014 itself, or at least in continuation to the previous application. 6. The application dated 12.03.2016 submitted for the petitioner''s appointment has been rejected on the ground that it is "one day" beyond the period prescribed for submitting application for compassionate appointment. The period prescribed by the respondent-M/s Central Coalfields Limited for submission of application for compassionate appointment is an executive order and it is not that this period has been provided under the Limitation Act, 1963; for counting the period of limitation even under the Limitation Act law permits exclusion of certain period. Leaving aside the aforesaid aspect, rejection of the application for the petitioner''s appointment on the ground of one day''s delay, in the aforesaid facts of the case, must be held illegal. It is not that the application for the petitioner''s appointment is made on the basis of any right transferred by his elder brother. Invalidity of the petitioner''s elder brother has occasioned submission of another application for compassionate appointment. If the extant rules do not confer an absolute right on a particular dependant to seek compassionate appointment, normally, or at least under NCWA, every eligible dependant of the ex-employee has a right to claim compassionate appointment, however, it is offered to the one whose claim is sponsored by other surviving family members. 7. On the date of death of his father, the petitioner was eligible and as on today also he is eligible for appointment. In view of the provisions under NCWA he is entitled to seek compassionate appointment after the death of his father in harness. 8. Viewed thus, and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 12.06.2018 is quashed. If the petitioner fulfills other conditions for appointment, if any, the Manager (Personnel)-respondent no.6 shall take steps for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. 9. The writ petition stands allowed.