MANOJ KUMAR Vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order/letter dtd. 31/8/2013/2/9/2013 (Annexure P/1) whereby his application for dependent employment has been rejected on the ground of he being overage. The petitioner is also challenging the order/letter dated 07/9/2/2014 (Annexure P/2) whereby he has been informed about non-consideration of his case for inapplicability of provisions of I.I. 76 to his case.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that father of the petitioner namely Rajendra Sahu was appointed and working as Conveyor Belt Operator with the respondents since 14/4/1975 and died in harness on 16/4/2012. This fact was brought to the notice of the respondents by his widow i.e. petitioner's mother by moving an application for dependent employment under Chapter 9 of National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA)-VII and on being so informed, the respondents issued an office order dtd. 12/5/2012 (Annexure P/3) to strike off the name of the deceased employee from its rolls. On 4/1/2013 the petitioner's mother moved another application (Annexure P/4) for dependent employment to the petitioner stating that her other family members have no objection to it. However, by the impugned letter dated 13/14/5/2013 the respondents informed the petitioner that as per their records, he has attained the upper age limit for appointment and as such, cannot be considered for dependent employment, and the petitioner was directed to produce his age related documents for further proceedings. Accordingly, the petitioner produced transfer certificate/school leaving certificate issued by the school from where he studied Class-X as also his Adhar Card along with application dtd. 5/9/2013 (Annexure P/6) wherein his date of birth is shown as 10/8/1978, meaning thereby that he had not attained the upper age limit of 35 years as on the date of application for appointment under the scheme of the respondents. However, by the impugned order/letter dated 07/9/2/2014 (Annexure P/2) the respondent No.4 informed the petitioner that the provisions of NCWA are applicable to only those who are on rolls of the company and not to the case of the petitioner. Since rejection of claim of the petitioner for dependent employment is per se arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of NCWA, hence this petition for the following reliefs:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reluctance shown by the respondents towards consideration of age of the petitioner for dependent employment under the provisions of NCWAs being contrary to law is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioner's application has been rejected on the ground that provisions of I.I. 76 are applicable to only those employees who are on the rolls of the company whereas it is absolutely misconceived and incorrect and contrary to the direction of the head office of the respondent-company. The reason assigned by the respondents while rejecting the petitioner's case is not open to them at all as Clause A (ii) of I.I. 76 drawn under NCWAs specifically provides for determination of age at the time of appointment, meaning thereby that the same is applicable to persons entering in service. In other words, such provision may not be made inapplicable for new incumbents at the whims and fancies of the respondents. Further, as per provisions of Clause 9.3.4 of NCWA-VI adopted in toto in NCWA-XI, the petitioner on the date of making application for dependent employment, was a person below 35 years of age and thus, had a very genuine case for such purpose. Hence, the respondents are absolutely unjustified in rejecting the petitioner's case for dependent employment. Thus, the petition deserves to be allowed with the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the matter of Amarnath Kurre Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. reported in Laws (Chh) 2013 8 43.