YUGESH @ YUGESH KARMALI Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for getting compassionate appointment, because of the death of the father of the present petitioner, which has taken place on 17th April, 1999.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to Annexure 4 as well as Annexure 6 to the memo of petition and submitted that the respondents have wrongly denied the compassionate appointment to the present petitioner, despite the fact that the name of the present petitioner was already referred in the service records of the respondents, as a son of his father. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharani Devi & anr. v. Union of India & ors., as reported in A.I.R. 2010 (1) Jhar R 88, as also a decision, rendered by this Court in the case of Durga Kumari v. Central Coalfields Ltd. & ors. (L.P.A. No. 289 of 2008, disposed of on 12th August, 2010).

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly for the following reasons: