Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 305 (JHR)

Milu Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2022-03-15

S.N.PATHAK

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the letter dated No. PD/MP/9.3.0/NK/18/3805 dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure-4), whereby and whereunder the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent-authorities. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondent-authorities to issue letter of appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the petitioner. 3. As per the factual matrix, the father of the petitioner, late Pukram was employed with the respondent-CCL to the post of Ex-EP Fitter, KDH Project, NK Area and subsequently, died in harness on 23.06.2017. It is the case of the petitioner that on 28.05.1998, petitioner was 15 years of age, which is also evident from LTC Form. It is the specific case of the petitioner that documents submitted by father of the petitioner clearly shows that on the date of submission of application for compassionate appointment, age of the petitioner was 34 years 2 months, which is well within the limits for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. Inspite of the same, the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent-authorities on the ground that different age has been mentioned in several documents. As such, the petitioner was referred to the Medical Board, which was of the opinion that age of the petitioner was between 35 to 40 years and hence, his case for compassionate appointment was rejected. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has thrown challenge to the said order of rejection. 4. Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that illegally and arbitrarily, without considering the documents available in the service excerpts of the petitioner’s father, the respondents have sent the petitioner before the Medical Board for assessment of his, which has assessed the age of the petitioner to be between 35 to 40 years. It has been further argued that even taking into consideration the age assessed by the Medical Board, the lesser age was to be considered by the respondent-authorities and as such, rejection of the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground of overage, on the fact it, is illegal and void ab initio. It has been further argued that even taking into consideration the age assessed by the Medical Board, the lesser age was to be considered by the respondent-authorities and as such, rejection of the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground of overage, on the fact it, is illegal and void ab initio. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the plethora of judgments of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court and submits that it is well settled law that minimum age has to be taken into consideration in case of any dispute with respect to age. Learned counsel accordingly submits that a direction be given to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground and issue letter of appointment to that effect. 5. Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondent-CCL vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that admittedly, the petitioner was not within the ambit of consideration as he was overage on the date of application for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel submits that in view of variation in the age of the petitioner recorded in the service excerpts of his father, which is reflected from the several documents, the matter was referred to the Medical Board. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards the decision of the Medical Board and submits that even the Medical Board assessed the age of the petitioner to be between 35 to 40 years. Learned counsel submits that as per the Circular of Coal India Ltd. any age assessed by the Medical Board, the midway of the same has to be taken into consideration and as such, the same was done and upon consideration it was found that petitioner has crossed 35 years, which is the maximum age prescribed for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel further argues that the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the instant case and as such, justifying the impugned order, it has been submitted that case of the petitioner has rightly been turned down, as he has been assessed more than 35 years on the date of submission of application form. 6. 6. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, on perusal of the documents brought on record it is clear that age of the petitioner was 34 years 2 months and in some documents the same was mentioned as 34 years 7 months. As such, there was no occasion to send the petitioner before the Medical Board, as from the documents available with the respondents it was very much clear that on the date of submitting application for compassionate appointment, the age of the petitioner was below 35 years. Even admitting that the Medical Board has assessed the age of the petitioner to be between 35 to 40 years, it is well settled law, as has been held by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, that minimum age has to be taken into consideration and as such, as per the age assessed by the Medical Board, the minimum age of petitioner comes to 35 years and on this score also the case of the petitioner needs consideration. 7. This Court in case of Md. Rahim Vs. the Project Officer and Ors. (LPA No. 117 of 2010) and also in case of Lilwa Bhuiyan Vs. CCL & Ors. (LPA No. 687 of 2019), considering the aforesaid issues, came to the finding that the minimum age has to be taken into consideration while granting appointment on compassionate appointment. The issue regarding possibility of errors of two years plus-minus in assessment of age fell for consideration before this Court in case of Md. Rahim Vs. the Project Officer and Ors. (LPA No. 117 of 2010) and this Court vide its order dated 01.12.2010, disposed of the said Appeal holding therein that the petitioner could not be denied compassionate appointment on the ground of variation in age. The said view was reiterated by this Court in case of Lilwa Bhuiyan Vs. CCL & Ors. (LPA No. 687 of 2019) disposed of on 10.02.2021. 8. The said view was reiterated by this Court in case of Lilwa Bhuiyan Vs. CCL & Ors. (LPA No. 687 of 2019) disposed of on 10.02.2021. 8. Since the appointment of compassionate ground is provided in order to help the family of the deceased employee to overcome the sudden financial crisis which the family members have been subjected due to sudden death of the bread earner, it cannot be denied on the sweet-will of the employer. Pick and choose method has always been deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The respondent-CCL being a machinery of State, cannot be allowed to adopt pick and choose method. This view was also taken into consideration by this Court in LPA No. 687 of 2019. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, I hereby quash and set aside the order of rejection contained in letter No. PD/MP/9.3.0/NK/18/3805 dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure-4). The respondent-CCL is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground taking into consideration the minimum age assessed by the Medical Board. 10. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Needless to say that if the case of the petitioner is found fit for consideration, an offer of appointment to that effect be also issued to him within a further period of three weeks. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.