MANOJ KUMAR Vs. CENTRAL COAL FIELD LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY the impugned order contained in Reference No. 1841 dated 11th August, 2006 (Annexure -8), the application for compassionate appointment of the original petitioner, Dhan Soy, husband of the deceased lady employee, Sahatarin Bai has been rejected on the grounds that none of the basic records maintained in the office of the competent authority/employer bears the name of the said Dhan Soy, the original petitioner, as the husband of the deceased employee. During the pendency of the writ application the original petitioner died and one Manoj Kumar stood substituted claiming himself to be the sole heir and son of the deceased petitioner. He has perused this writ application with a claim for appointment on compassionate ground on the death of his mother on 6th February, 2003 in harness invoking the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement -VI.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents -CCL submits that after the death of the original employee who himself was appointed on compassionate ground on the death of her mother, the case of the original petitioner claiming himself to be husband of the deceased -employee, was considered but none of the records in the office of the employer bears the name of the applicant and as such his application was rejected by the impugned order contained at Annexure -9. Learned counsel for the respondents has refuted the stand of the petitioner based upon CMPF document by submitting that the marriage card of the husband of the deceased employee showed that he got married to lady in November, 1992 but the declaration contained in Form -PS -3 and maintained in the office of CMPF showed that one of his sons i.e. present petitioner was already aged 6 years on 28th May. 1988 i.e. he was born before marriage of the original petitioner to the deceased employee. It is further submitted that the certificates submitted by the petitioner. Manoj Kumar also shows that his date of birth as 5th June, 1991 which is Annexure -8 to the Interlocutory Application No. 3454/11. annexed to the substitution petition. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present case discloses serious disputed questions of fact relating to the claim of the present petitioner also as being borne out of the marriage of the deceased employee and the original petitioner, Dhan Soy. Both the documents i.e. marriage card (Annexure -2) brought on record by the petitioner, showing marriage taking place in November, 1992 and the date of birth of the present petitioner claiming himself as son vide certificate contained at Annexure8 as showing his date of birth as 5th June, 1991 contradict to each other,