DINESH KUMAR MAHTO Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) FATHER of the petitioner No. 1 - late Madhusudan Mahto was an employee of the respondent BCCL as an Electrician in Mahuda Washery when he was declared medically unfit on the opinion of the Medical Board in the year 2004 and pursuant to the letter order dated 13/14.08.2004 (Annexure -1), he was relieved from service with effect from 16.08.2004.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied upon extracts of certain judgments in the supplementary affidavit such as, in the case of Srikanta Garai versus Coal India Limited & others in WPS No. 1720/2004 by Calcutta High Court as also by Learned Division Bench of this Court in WPS No. 4461/2008 and analogous cases. It is submitted that if the claim of appointment is not being opposed by any other person, respondents should have granted appointment to the petitioner No. 1 as he fell within the category of dependents under the relevant provisions of N.C.W.A. which was in vogue at the relevant point of time.