DURGAM MALLESH Vs. SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED (SCCL)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner No.2 for dependant employment vide proceedings dtd. 23/11/2019 issued by the respondentNo.2, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice; violative of Articles 14, 16, 19(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and against the judgment of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA v. V.R. TRIPATHI,(2019) 14 SCC 646. and to set aside the impugned proceedings dtd. 23/11/2019 and direct the respondents to consider the petitioner No.2 for dependant employment.

(2.) It is stated that the petitioner No.3 is the wife of the petitioner No.1; petitioner No.4 is the second wife of the petitioner No.1; petitioner No.2 is the eldest son of the second wife of the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.5 is the youngest son of second wife of the petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 was a permanent employee of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited and his designation was coal cutter. He worked until March 2019 at Kasipet Mine, Mandamarri Area. He was removed from service since he was declared medically invalid by the Corporate Medical Board for further service. His name was removed from the service rolls of the Kasipet Mine with effect from 26/3/2019.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioners that as per the National coal Wage Agreement, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for either employment to one of the dependants or monetary benefits. Petitioner No.2 is the eldest son of the second wife of the petitioner No.1. He completed SCC/10th class with 7.3 CGPA for the academic year 2015-2016 and his age is 20 years. He is eligible for dependant employment and the petitioners No.1, 3, 4 and 5 agreed unanimously for dependant employment for the petitioner No.2. Accordingly, the petitioners No.1 to 5 submitted application before the respondent No.3 for dependant employment to petitioner No.2. However, under the impugned proceedings dtd. 23/11/2019, the dependant employment was rejected by giving the following reason: