MEGHNATH MAHTO Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned letter dated 1/2.4.2008, Annexure-3, the application of the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground has not been considered by the competent authority on the ground of physical handicap which the petitioner is said to have been suffering. The petitioner's father was working as a Pump Khalasi in Sirka Colliery of the respondent No. 1-CCL. The petitioner claims to be the eldest son of his father, who died-in-harness on 11.5.2003 vide Annexure-2, the death certificate. According to the petitioner he made an application on 7.1.2004 seeking compassionate appointment but the same has been rejected on the ground of being physically handicapped as per para 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the counter affidavit the respondents have enclosed the medical certificates granted by the examining body in respect of number of persons in whose case they have been found not fully physically fit but had been given employment on the compassionate ground. He has given reference of such persons at para 16 of the writ application, in response to which the aforesaid documents have been annexed by the respondents. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the petitioner has himself enclosed a certificate granted by the Chief Medical Officer, Hazaribagh, Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, relating to the physical disability suffered by the petitioner to the extent of 25% on the ground of post polio paresis of left lower limb, his case has been rejected without referring it to the Medical Board. Similar other applicants have been appointed even after physical disability. The petitioner's case should also have been referred to the Medical Board before treating this petitioner as unfit on account of physical disability.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents justified the impugned order on the ground that in other cases the said persons may not have enclosed the medical certificate. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that when the petitioner himself had furnished the medical certificate granted by the Chief Medical Officer, Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, showing 25% disability, there was no occasion for the respondents to consider him for appointment on compassionate ground in view of clause 9.3.4 of NCWA. Clause 9.3.4 provides for appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee on compassionate ground but the applications should be physically fit and suitable for appointment and should be within the minimum permissible age of such appointment. In such circumstances, he submits that the impugned order is fully justified and no interference is required.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and after going through the materials brought on record, this Court is of the view that if the other applicants for compassionate appointment were subjected to medical examination before a Board constituted by the respondents before granting or refusing appointment to them, this petitioner should also have been referred for examination by the Medical Board of the respondent-CCL before treating him unfit on the ground of physical handicap. The basis for doing so admittedly appears to be the medical certificate annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit of the respondents submitted by the petitioner himself at the time of making application. In such circumstances, therefore, the respondents should consider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with law by referring him to the Medical Board constituted for the said purpose to find out whether he is physically fit for appointment on such ground.