JIT RAM Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner, who was working with the respondents, expired on 10th April, 2002. The petitioner is son of the deceased employee and he is seeking compassionate appointment. He applied in time. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the father of the petitioner has mentioned two names of the petitioner in his service records. One is correct name and another is nick name. Be as it may, but, the petitioner is the same person. Even police report has been sought for by the respondents and it has been stated by the police also that the petitioner is the same person who is also referred as Jagdeo Ram. Thus, both name, namely Jit Ram as well as Jagdeo Ram are the same person. There are several statements made by the witnesses, which are at Annexure F series. This reveals that Jagdeo Ram as well as Jit Ram are the same person. Police report is at Annexure 4/1 to the memo of the present petition.

(2.) Counsel for the respondents State submitted that as the father of the petitioner has mentioned the name of his son as Jagdeo Ram and therefore, the petitioner is not given the compassionate appointment.

(3.) Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to Annexure 4/1 of the memo of the present petition, which is a police report, it reveals the fact that Jagdeo Ram and Jit Ram are the same person. Moreover, looking to Annexure F series to the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents, there are enough number of witnesses, which reveals the fact that both Jagdeo Ram and Jit Ram are the same person. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the respondents authorities while passing the impugned order dated 6/11th January, 2005 ( Annexure 6 to the memo of the present petition).