UMESH RAM Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the letter No. 6075 dated 23/25/9/2014 and letter No. 478 dtd. 30/1/2016, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father namely, Nand Kishore Dom, who died in harness, has been denied.

(3.) The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The father of the petitioner while working under respondent-CCL died on 18/12/2011 and her mother namely, Chamela Devi died on 16/12/2011 i.e. two days.. prior to the death of his father. It is the case of the petitioner that he and his entire family members were fully dependent upon the earnings of his father and after the death of his father, they are facing financial hardship. Hence, the petitioner submitted application before the concerned authority for his appointment on compassionate ground in place of his father, who died in harness. Upon receipt of the application of the petitioner, the concerned authority had asked the petitioner to deposit the educational certificate, in response to which he submitted his 8th pass certificate as at the relevant time matriculation certificate was not available with him. However, as soon as the petitioner got the matriculation certificate, he submitted the same before the respondent-authorities. Thereafter, on 21/7/2014, again the petitioner submitted representation before the General Manager of the respondent- CCL requesting therein to take necessary steps with regard to appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. Thereafter vide letter dated 23/25/9/2014 issued by respondent No. 4, it was informed to the petitioner that his application for compassionate appointment under Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA has been regretted by the competent authority. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the petitioner preferred appeal on 3/6/2015 before the General Manager, CCL, Ranchi, requesting therein to reconsider his case for compassionate appointment. Subsequently, vide letter dtd. 10/2/2016, it was informed to the petitioner that his case for compassionate appointment cannot be considered for the following reasons: