BABURAM MANJHI Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner for setting aside the order dated 11.5.2004 passed by the Respondents by which the Petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected and he has further prayed that the Respondents be directed to re-consider the matter and provide appointment to the Petitioner whose father died in harness on 15.8.1998.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the name of the Petitioner has been shown in the service book of the deceased employee, as the son of the deceased and Ms age has been indicated as four years in the year 1987. Thus, the Petitioner was about 15 years at the time of the death of his father. No date of birth has, been indicated in the said Register. He further pointed out that the Petitioner filed an application in the year 1998 along with his school leaving/transfer certificate which is also annexed with the writ petition according to which the Petitioner was above 18 years at the time of filing the application. So, he was entitled for compassionate appointment. He further pointed out that it is not in dispute that the Petitioner is the son of the deceased and the other member of his family had applied for employment under " died in harness" scheme. Either way, either the Petitioner would have been kept in the live Roster or he would have been given appointment to which he was eligible.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Respondents refuted the contention and contended that the school leaving certificate (Annexure 6) dated 30.5.1998 shows the date of birth of the Petitioner as 21.4.1980 and he had completed the age of 18 years. According to the service record which was filed by his father, the age of the Petitioner has been shown as 4 years at the relevant time. There is a gap of three years in both the dates given on the side of the Petitioner and he did not apply for live Roster, rather, only for appointment being major under the rules. He further pointed out that he could not be given appointment in view of the said inconsistency.