BECHAN Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner request for appointment on compassionate grounds on account of death of his father on 15.12.1999 has been rejected by the impugned order contained in letter no. 1536 dated 10.10.2002 issued by the respondent no. 5, Personnel Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Sayal 'D' Colliery, Hazaribagh.

(2.) Certain dates are important to consider the petitioner's case. The petitioner's father was appointed on 14.4.1972 on the post of 'Mazdoor' (Category-I) under the respondent-CCL. On 15.12.1999 he died-in-harness and death certificate was issued on 11.4.2000. At the relevant point of time when the petitioner's father had died time period for making application for compassionate appointment under the 1995 circular was 6 months. The petitioner's application was rejected on 10.10.2002 by the impugned letter. Before that on 1.1.2002 the respondent had issued a circular which is contained at Annexure-B (ii) whereby on the persistent demand of the union the time period for making an application for consideration of appointment on compassionate grounds was relaxed for 1 year w.e.f. February, 2000. The petitioner's application has been rejected in October, 2002 on the grounds that his application was made 21 days beyond the 6 months period under the 1995 circular for making such application. Respondents, however appeared to have forgot that as per their own circular time limit for making application was relaxed for 1 year to take effect from February, 2000 itself by the circular dated 1.1.2002 referred to herein above. Since the rejection order came after issuance of first circular dated 1.1.2002, the petitioner's application made 21 days after the 6 months period earlier in vogue, as per the circular of 1995 could not have been rejected on such ground, as the circular of 1.1.2002 had taken effect and such application was made after February, 2000. In the circumstances, the ground for rejecting the petitioner's case as time barred does not seem to be justified by any logic or reason.

(3.) The respondents have however, stated that after 13 years of death of the employee in-harness the principle laid in respect of compassionate appointment by the Hon'ble Courts clearly lay down that after such time lapse the destitute family has survived the immediate effect of the death of bread earner and no consideration for compassionate appointment should have been made.