Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1153 (JHR)

Central Coalfields Limited v. Deep Narayan Singh

2019-06-17

DEEPAK ROSHAN, H.C.MISHRA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant Central Coalfields Limited (herein referred to as the ''Company''), and learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioner. 2. The appellant Company is aggrieved by the order dated 21.4.2017 passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No. 1875 of 2016, whereby, the writ application filed by the respondent writ petitioner for his appointment in the appellant Company on compassionate ground, has been allowed by the Hon''ble Single Judge, directing the appellant Company to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and issue letter of appointment in pursuance of paras 9.3.0, 9.4.0 and 9.5.0 NCWA-VI, within the period of three months from the date of production / receipt of the order. 3. The facts of the case lie in a short compass. The father of the respondent writ petitioner was an employee of the appellant Company and was posted as Tripnan in Kargali OCP, B & K Area, who was declared unfit by the appellant Company, and subsequently his name was also struck off from the rolls of the Company on the same ground on 5.1.2013. In compliance of para 9.4.0 of the NCWA-VI, the father of the respondent writ petitioner had given an application for employment of his elder son, i.e., the elder brother of the writ petitioner, but his case was rejected on the ground that he was overage. In the meantime, the father of the respondent writ petitioner died and the mother of the respondent writ petitioner gave application for the employment of the respondent writ petitioner on compassionate ground on 20.1.2015, which was again rejected by the appellant Company by order dated 11.2.2015, as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, stating that the respondent writ petitioner was also overage being aged more than 35 years. This order was challenged by the writ petitioner by filing W.P.(S) No. 1875 of 2016, and the writ application was allowed by quashing Annexure-6 and directing the appellant Company to appoint the writ petitioner on compassionate ground. 4. This order was challenged by the writ petitioner by filing W.P.(S) No. 1875 of 2016, and the writ application was allowed by quashing Annexure-6 and directing the appellant Company to appoint the writ petitioner on compassionate ground. 4. The impugned order passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge clearly shows that the Hon''ble Single Judge has relied upon only the matriculation certificate of the writ petitioner, which showed his date of birth to be 7.8.1991, and other documents on record showing that respondent writ petitioner was overage on the date of his application, were brushed aside by the Hon''ble Single Judge, relying upon the matriculation certificate issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Company has challenged the order passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge, submitting that it is a case in which the date of birth was mentioned in the matriculation certificate of respondent writ petitioner fraudulently, inasmuch as, the father of the respondent writ petitioner had submitted the form PS-3, during the course of his employment on 29.5.1998, in which, the writ petitioner was shown to be aged about 19 years. This means that date of birth of the writ petitioner was sometimes in the year 1979. In the counter affidavit filed before the Writ Court by the appellant Company, it was also stated as follows in paragraph-28:- "28. That the ex-employee has disclosed the petitioner''s name in his different service records i.e. Service Sheet Excepts on dated 24.3.1987, LTC Option Form on 6.8.82 and PS-3 on 29.5.1998. The instant records of ex-employee show and suggest that the petitioner name was disclosed after his birth." 6. There is no denial to the aforesaid statement made in paragraph-28 of the counter affidavit filed by the appellant Company in the writ petition. Thus, it is apparent from the statements made in paragraph-28 of the counter affidavit that father of the respondent writ petitioner had even availed the LTC facility along with the writ petitioner in the year 1982 itself, and still the respondent writ petitioner claimed his date of birth to be 7.8.1991 on the basis of his matriculation certificate. Thus, it is apparent from the statements made in paragraph-28 of the counter affidavit that father of the respondent writ petitioner had even availed the LTC facility along with the writ petitioner in the year 1982 itself, and still the respondent writ petitioner claimed his date of birth to be 7.8.1991 on the basis of his matriculation certificate. It is also pointed out that title of the writ petitioner did not tally in the matriculation certificate, inasmuch as, the titles of the writ petitioner and his father are mentioned as "Singh", in Form PS-3, as also in the writ application, whereas in the matriculation certificate, their titles have been shown as "Chauhan". Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that in the backdrop of these facts, the matriculation certificate could have been relied upon and it is not a fit case for compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner at all. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge, as in view of the matriculation certificate produced by the writ petitioner, the other documents / statements, showing contrary age of the writ petitioner, could not be looked into, and those documents / statements have been rightly brushed aside by the Hon''ble Single Judge. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge. 8. Having heard learned counsels for both the parties and upon going through the impugned order, we are of the considered view that though it is a fact that the date of birth as mentioned in the matriculation certificate is the prima facie proof of the age, and no other document was required to be looked into, but the fact remains there are materials to show that the name of the respondent writ petitioner found mentioned in the service records of his father much prior to the year 1991, i.e., the year of his birth mentioned in his matriculation certificate. To cap all, even the LTC facility had been availed in the year 1982 in the name of the writ petitioner also, which fact is not denied by the respondent writ petitioner. To cap all, even the LTC facility had been availed in the year 1982 in the name of the writ petitioner also, which fact is not denied by the respondent writ petitioner. In that view of the matter, it can clearly be deciphered that the respondent writ petitioner was already born in the year 1981 and had availed the LTC facility of the Company, but what was the age at that time, cannot be properly deciphered. As such, the matriculation certificate showing the date of birth of the writ petitioner in the year 1991, cannot be relied upon. The date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate is clearly false and it is a clear cut case of fraud played upon. 9. In the backdrop of these facts, it is apparent that the writ petitioner was over-aged being more than 35 years on the date of submission of the application for appointment on compassionate ground by his mother. As such, the appellant-Company was perfectly justified in denying the appointment on compassionate ground to the writ petitioner. We are of the considered view that for these reasons, the impugned order dated 21.4.2017, passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1875 of 2016, directing the appellant Company to appoint the writ petitioner on compassionate ground, solely on the basis of his matriculation certificate, cannot be sustained in the eye of law, which is hereby, set aside. 10. This letters patent appeal is accordingly, allowed. Consequently, all the aforesaid interlocutory applications stand disposed of.