MANU KARMALI Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. The instant writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:-

(2.) From the averments made in the writ petition as well as stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State, it appears that petitioner was examined by the Medical Board on 07.09.2001 in which the Board had recommended him fit for job, and observed that "Review after completion of treatment at G.N.H.". In the meantime, petitioner retired in his natural course on 30.04.2002. Thereafter, petitioner kept waiting till 2007 and approached before this Court after five years for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground of benefit of clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Wages Agreement stating that petitioner had been examined by the Medical Board and it was declared that he is medically fit and pursuant thereto he has been taken into employment. However, in this case petitioner was neither declared medically unfit nor had challenged the said order of Medical Board in which Board declared him medically fit. In the circumstances, after lapses of 10 years from the date of retirement, the respondents submits that it is not proper for any relief to the petitioner for appointment to his son in his place under clause 9.4.0 National Coal Wages Agreement.