BASUDEV SINGH Vs. EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the learned counsel for the parties. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking recall of the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2008 in FMA No. 182 of 2006. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 12566 (W) of 2004 challenging the order dated 19/20th March, 2004 issued by the Personal Manager whereby the prayer of the writ petitioner for employment in the eastern Coalfields Ltd. on compassionate grounds had been rejected. After a detailed discussion, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 23rd August, 2004. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal being FMA No. 182 of 2006. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed by this Division Bench by passing an elaborate order, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length. Now, the present review petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming that the judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by the Division bench in dismissing the appeal were not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is also pleaded and argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Single Judge had wrongly dismissed the writ petition only on the ground of delay in laches. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in the cases of state of Manipur vs. Md. Rajaodin reported in 2003 III CLR 963 and Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Supreme Court was not dealing with a prior agreement like the National Coal Wage Agreement " II as in the instant case. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge had wrongly dismissed the writ petition only on the ground of delay in laches. This, according to the learned counsel, is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of mohan Mahto vs. Central Coal Field Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that in the aforesaid case it has been clearly held that a claim of a dependent of a deceased employee who was governed by the settlement known as National Coal Wage Agreement could not be rejected on the ground of limitation. It is, therefore, submitted that the review petition deserves to be allowed.

(2.) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner. We are of the opinion that the review petition has been filed on wholly misconceived grounds. It is not disputed that the father of the petitioner retired from service on medical grounds on 25th of March, 1983. After retirement, in the year 1998 father of the petitioner moved a Writ Petition No. 2142 (W) of 1998 in this Court seeking an order for appointment for the second wife on compassionate grounds. The aforesaid writ petition was rejected by this Court by order dated 01. 03. 1999 on a number of grounds including that the second marriage was not valid. The father of the petitioner died on 27th March, 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents for appointment on compassionate grounds. His claim was based on the provisions of National Coal wage Agreement " II which provides that "employment would be provided to the dependant of worker who are disabled permanently and also those who die while in service. " This claim was rejected by a letter dated 01. 02. 2002. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 5251 (W) of 2003. This writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 30th September, 2003 with a direction to the concerned respondents to consider the case of the review petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of the communication of the order. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the petitioner was called for a personal hearing. At the hearing the petitioner instead of seeking employment for himself, made a prayer that his mother may be appointed on compassionate grounds. This prayer was rejected by order dated 19/20th March, 1994, in view of the order passed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition No. 2142 (W) of 1998 moved by the father of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 12566 (W) of 2004. Again the claim of the writ petitioner has been rejected by the learned single Judge by order dated 23rd August, 2004. The learned Single judge while dismissing the writ petition observed as follows :-

(3.) THE Trial Court also observed that in the order dated 19th of march, 2004 the competent authority clearly recorded in his order that the petitioner instead of praying for a compassionate appointment for himself, made a prayer that such appointment might be given to his mother. It is also observed by the Trial Court that the correctness of such fact recorded in the decision was not disputed by the petitioner by writing any letter to the authority or by making any statement in the writ petition. Therefore, the statement of the counsel for the writ petitioner that "the authority wrongly recorded the fact that the petitioner sought a compassionate appointment for his mother, and not for himself" was not also accepted.