CHARKA MANJHI Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter relates to appointment of the petitioner either on the post of Grade 'C' or 'D' on compassionate appointment under the establishment of Central Coalfield Limited on account of death of the father of the petitioner in course of his employment.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner's father namely, late Birsa Manjhi working as Break Man at Giddi 'A' Colliery died in harness on 9.6.2003, leaving his wife, son (petitioner) and one unmarried daughter. Thereupon the petitioner filed an application before the respondent No. 5, the Project Officer, Central Coalfield Limited, Giddi 'A' Colliery on 15.10.2003 for giving him employment on compassionate ground. Before filing the said application, the authority had asked for a report from the Block Development Officer, Churchu regarding relationship in between the petitioner and the deceased employee and then under a letter dated 29.9.2003 (Annexure 4), mother of the petitioner was called upon to appear along with the dependents before the Screening Committee. In spite of these exercises, when no order was passed on the application of the petitioner relating to his appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner filed this writ application. When a counter affidavit was filed it was disclosed that the petitioner's claim of appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected and an order to this effect was communicated by Staff Officer (pers.) (A), Sirka to the Project Officer, Giddi 'A' Colliery, vide letter dated 15.7.2004 which was annexed as Annexure E to the counter affidavit. The said decision was also communicated under letter dated it 3.8.2004 (Annexure F) to this petitioner. Upon coming to know that claim of the petitioner of appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected, the petitioner, by way of amendment petition being interlocutory application No. 722 of 2010 challenged those letters as contained in Annexures E and F to the counter affidavit to be bad. The said prayer was allowed by this Court.

(3.) The case of the respondent as has been made out in the counter affidavit is that the deceased employee during his employment got the age of the petitioner recorded as 19 years as on 1.4.1987 in the service excerpt of the deceased employee and in that eventuality, the petitioner would be completing 35 years of age on 1.4.2003 whereas petitioner's father died on 9.6.2003. It has also been disclosed that in the L.T.C. record of concerned deceased, petitioner's age has been recorded as 18 years as on 1.12.1983 and as such, the petitioner completed 35 years of age on 1.12.2000. On this factual background, stand of the respondents is that the petitioner, being more than 35 years of age on the day when his father died, is not entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground.