Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1495 (JHR)

Ram Pukar Sao v. Central Coalfields Limited

2019-08-28

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2019
JUDGMENT Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. -Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kr. Das, learned counsel for the respondents-C.C.L. 2. The petitioner has preferred the writ petition for quashing the letter dated 08.05.2012 whereby the application for the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 3. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is mother-in-law of the petitioner who was appointed as piece rated workman after death of her husband. The mother-in-law of the petitioner was appointed in respondent company on 18.02.1988 after death of her husband and she died in harness while she was on duty on 13.11.2010. She was having four daughters and in the service book daughter namely Samundri Kumari was nominated by the deceased employee Bichhni Devi as her nominee to receive retiral benefits. Samundri Kumari was married with this petitioner and after the marriage the petitioner and Samundri Kumari stayed with the deceased employee in her residence as the petitioner was unemployed and dependent on her. Learned counsel further submits that will was executed on 13.07.2009 in favour of wife of the petitioner in which the name of the petitioner figures as husband of the Samundri Kumari. Referring to the will, he submits that the deceased employee has stated therein that the daughter Samundri Kumari is looking after her and on the basis of that he submits that the petitioner was also residing with his wife at residence of the deceased employee. He submits that the impugned order has been passed only on the ground that the petitioner''s name has not mentioned in the service book of the deceased. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL submits that the petitioner failed to provide any chit of paper to show that the petitioner was residing with the deceased employee and he had dependent on the deceased employee. He further submits that this Court earlier adjourned the matter at the instance of the petitioner and was directed to produce documents showing that the petitioner was residing with the deceased employee. Further submits that the petitioner till her death has not produced any documents to that effect. He further submits that this Court earlier adjourned the matter at the instance of the petitioner and was directed to produce documents showing that the petitioner was residing with the deceased employee. Further submits that the petitioner till her death has not produced any documents to that effect. Referring to the counter affidavit particularly Annexures- F(I) & F (II), he submits that in Annexure-F(I), the name of the petitioner is not figured which is dated 08.03.2011 and subsequently in Annexure-F (II) which is dated 23.12.2011 the name of the petitioner finds figure and both the documents were issued by the same office. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court finds that the ground of rejection in the impugned order is that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the service book whereas the respondent C.C.L in the counter-affidavit mentioned that no documents to that effect has been produced to show that the petitioner was residing with the deceased employee and was dependent on her. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order is not sustained in the eyes of law and accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 2 who will consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass speaking order in this regard within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of.