LAKHAN KUMAR Vs. CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. A very short question is involved in this appeal as the employee died in harness on 23rd November, 1997 and at the time of death of the employee; his son, petitioner-appellant, was of 15 years 7 months and 22 days. As per the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, if the applicants, who are minors of age of 15 years and above, could not have been given appointment forthwith, then they are required to be kept in live-roaster. The petitioner-appellant's earlier writ petition was dismissed but in L.P.A. No. 780/2004, this issue was considered in detail in order dated 5.5.2005 and it was observed that the case of a minor has been specifically provided for in para 9.5.0 and it appears to have been the intention of the respondent-company that those who are minors at the time when their parents in employment die, should be provided with employment once the minor attains majority. The Division Bench observed that we see no reason why the said benefit should not be extended to the appellant-writ petitioner as well. Therefore, the issue has already been decided by the earlier order passed by the Division Bench in the order dated 5.5.2005 in L.P.A No. 780/2004. The Division Bench directed the respondent-company to reconsider the case of the appellant-writ petitioner, then they came out with a new ground and learned single Judge observed that the petitioner-appellant was of the age less than 15 years at the time of death of his father and taken note of an application dated 29th March, 2001, disclosing the age of the petitioner-appellant as 18 years. That impressed the learned single Judge and therefore, learned single Judge held that the petitioner-appellant was since not of the age of 15 years at the time of death of his father, he was not entitled to compassionate appointment. That appears to be a factual mistake, in view of the fact that it L.P.A. No. 780/2004, the Division Bench has already taken note of the petitioner-appellant's application dated December, 1999 and the learned counsel for the respondents had shown record from where it also appeared that the petitioner-appellant was of the age of 15 years at the time of death of his father.

(2.) In view of the above reasons, this appeal is allowed and the order dated 1st July, 2011 passed in W.P. (S) No. 311/2008 is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner-appellant for giving appointment under that scheme and are directed to give appointment to the petitioner-appellant within a period of two months from today and a writ of mandamus is also issued for that purpose so as to avoid further unnecessary objections to be raised by the employer.