JAMNI DEVI Vs. CENTARAL COALFIELD LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking relief of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide employment to son -in -law of the petitioner namely Ganesh Mahto on compassionate ground as per provisions of N.C.W.A.5.

(2.) IN nut -shell, the case of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner was an employee of the respondents' company working as Cat. -ll Mazdoor in Rajrappa. The husband of the petitioner namely Madaram Mahto died in harness on 16.1.2000. She further stated in her petition that she had no son. From their wedlock three daughters were born and they are namely Sunita Devi, Binita Devi and Karmi Devi and all the daughters are married. The petitioner has also alleged that Ganesh Mahto, husband of Sunita Devi, who is the son -in -law of the petitioner had applied for the compassionate appointment in 2001. It is alleged that the petitioner has attained the age of 51 years so she cannot get the employment and the petitioner has no son, so she had applied for his son -in -law under N.C.WA -5 for compassionate appointment. The said application was rejected by the authorities on the ground of limitation. The said order was challenged before this Court and this Court while considering the case of the petitioner directed the respondents to reconsider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. It was further held that the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground of limitation only was not justified. Thereafter, the contempt petition was also moved when they did not comply with the order again and the petitioner preferred this Writ Petition for seeking the Mandamus to provide the employment to the petitioner. Pursuant to the order of the Court, the application of the petitioner was again disposed of indicating that the case of the petitioner's son -in -law was examined at various level and offer monetary compensation to Smt. Jamni Devi wife of the deceased employee who is direct dependent of the deceased employee and whose name is appearing in service records of ex -service employee. Thus, in other words, the employment was denied to the son -in -law of the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's case was earlier considered and it was rejected on the ground that the application was time barred and the said order was challenged before the High Court and the said order was quashed by this Court in Writ Petition. The application of the petitioner was found to be well within time and the case of the petitioner was directed to be reconsidered and again they reconsidered the case. The respondents have offered the monetary compensation to the widow instead of providing the employment to her son -in -law on the ground that he is not the direct dependent.