Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1205 (JHR)

Jiut Kumar v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited

2019-06-25

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2019
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-BCCL. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for appointment on compassionate ground which has been rejected on the ground that the deceased employee was dismissed on 13.8.2002. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner died on 20.5.2001 and after the death of his father, on 30.5.2001 the petitioner requested the respondents to provide him employment and to pay the death benefits. Thereafter the petitioner received a letter dated 4.6.2008 issued by respondent no. 3 wherein he was informed that his father was dismissed from service on 13.8.2002 and hence the petitioner cannot be provided compassionate appointment. Learned counsel further submits that it is admitted that the petitioner’s father has died on 20.5.2001 whereas dismissal order has been issued on 13.8.2002. In paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit, it was also admitted by the respondents-BCCL that the dismissal order was passed on 13.8.2002. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner’s father died on 20.5.2001 whereas dismissal order was issued against the death person on 13.8.2002, which is not sustainable in law. In this regard, he has relied on a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Kamaldeo Kumar Vs. M/s BCCL, Dhanbad and Ors. (2015 SCC On Line Jhar 4395), wherein it has been held that the dismissal order after the death of the person is not sustainable. In Kamaldeo Kumar’s case, the respondents were directed to take a decision on the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner, in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since 18 years has elapsed, therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be issued in favour of the petitioner. Upon this, the petitioner submits that he approached the authority within time. 6. In view of the settled position of law, the petitioner is directed to file a representation, along with a copy of this order, before the authority within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The authority on receiving such representation will take a decision on the claim of the petitioner regarding appointment on compassionate ground within four weeks thereafter. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the case. 8. The authority on receiving such representation will take a decision on the claim of the petitioner regarding appointment on compassionate ground within four weeks thereafter. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the case. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.