MILAN KUMAR Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the writ petitioner (herein after to be referred to as the 'writ petitioner' only). His father, namely, Sebat Ram, who was employed as a Coal Cutter Category IX with the respondents, died in harness on 15.10.2002. After the death of his father, his real brother applied for compassionate appointment in January, 2003 but the same was rejected on the ground of overage. It is thereafter the petitioner applied for his appointment on 27.11.2003, on which, no decision was taken by the respondents for long four years, which constrained him to knock at the door of writ Court through the medium of W.P.(S) No. 4374 of 2007 seeking direction to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate grounds, which plea was resisted by the respondents in its counter affidavit, inter alia, on the grounds that his claim was rejected as far back as on 16.03.2004 being belated one filed after more than one year and that the order was also communicated to him by registered post with A/D. The learned writ Court vide judgment/order dated 26.02.2008 has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of suppression of fact vis- -vis the rejection of his claim by the respondents. The petitioner being aggrieved of said judgment has moved this Court through the instant Letters Patent Appeal, in which, there was 305 days delay, which already stands condoned.

(2.) When the case was taken up on 11th November, 2014 for admission, Mr. Shastri, learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn attention of the Court to a Circular No. PD/MP/9.3.2./Chcular/03 dated 19th June, 2003 issued by respondent (annexed as Annexure 5 with the supplementary affidavit taken on record), according to which the time limit for submission of application for compassionate appointment has been extended from one year to one and half years and it would be effective from 27.11.2002. On the strength of aforesaid Circular, Mr. Shastri stated that rejection of the application of the petitioner on 16.03.2004 on the ground that it was made after one year was contrary to the aforesaid circular issued by the respondents.

(3.) A specific query was put to Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondents as to whether the case of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected merely on ground of limitation or any other ground as well, Mr. Sen before making a categoric statement in this regard sought time to go through the records, which was not available to him on last date of hearing i.e. 11.11.2014, as such the consideration of the present appeal was deferred and taken up today.