ROHIDAS Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Grievance raised by the petitioner is against non-grant of employment to his son in terms of Clause-9.4.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement VIII and IX, which makes the provision for employment to dependents. Clauses- 9.4.1 and 9.4.3 whereof provide for:-

(2.) The petitioner who was employed as Loader at Jamuna Kotma Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. while in service had suffered impairment of motor power in left side upper and lower. He was medically examined by the Medical Board on 08.09.2015 whereon the Board opined that he can be given benefit of Clause-9.4.0. The petitioner however was not medically boarded out but retired on attaining the age of superannuation at the age of 60 years. After his retirement though it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that retiral dues have not been settled because of the controversy raised by the respondent that petitioner had obtained the job by playing fraud, by impersonating. The respondent however in a return filed on 04.10.2016 in paragraph-2 has categorically stated that the petitioner superannuated on 13.10.2015 and the answering respondents have paid handsome amount, besides that he is getting pension. These contentions are not denied by the petitioner, therefore, the contention made during course of hearing that the petitioner is deprived of his legitimate retiral dues, stand unsubstantiated.

(3.) As regard to appointment of the dependent son under Clause-9.4.0 of NCWA, true it is that the petitioner, in his medical, is adjudged that the benefit under Clause-9.4.0 can be given. However, it is not shown that the opinion of the Medical Board is binding. Had it been so the petitioner ought to have been boarded out on medical ground. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation. There is also no material on record to establish that the petitioner has ever approached the authorities for compassionate appointment invoking Clause-9.4.0. Though there has been some controversy regarding petitioner obtaining employment by impersonation, however, as per petitioner the enquiry caused by the Superintendent of Police, Anuppur, has turned in his favour. If that be so, the petitioner's son is always at liberty to apply for appointment by invoking Clause-9.4.0 and it is for the respondents to consider whether he is eligible.