BHADWA BEDIA Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19th June, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4779 of 2004 dismissing the writ petition.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant submitted that father of the appellant, who was an employee of the respondents, died in harness on 3rd September, 1998 and this appellant/original petitioner made an application on plain paper on 15th October, 1998 and in prescribed format on 21st July, 2000. His prayer was initially rejected vide order dated 31st January, 2003/1st February, 2003 by the respondent Management and against this rejection, W.P.(S) No. 2242 of 2003 was filed and vide Order dated 17th July, 2003 learned Single Judge, following the decision in the case of Roopna Manjhi Vrs. CCL & Others and Rinku Kumari Vrs. CC & Others regarding 1 1/2 years time limit for filing application for compassionate appointment, set aside the order dated 31st January, 2003/1st February, 2003 and remanded the matter to the respondent authority for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner. Respondent Management rejected the representation filed by this petitioner/present appellant vide order dated 30th January, 2004/4th February, 2004 citing delay in filing the application, i.e. filing the application after 1 year 10 1/2 months and not within One year 6 months after the death of the employee. Against this order of rejection W.P.(S) No. 4779 of 2004 was filed, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and against this order of dismissal this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the time limit for preferring an application for appointment on compassionate ground is not applicable in the present case because he was a minor when his father died on 3rd September, 1998 as date of birth of the appellant is 12th August, 1982. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, hence judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that as on today 16 years have elapsed after the death of father of the present appellant. The very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now. This appellant has attained the age of more than 32 years. As per practice application for compassionate appointment should have been preferred within 18 months from the date of death of the employee of the respondent, that too in a prescribed format. The application in prescribed format was preferred by the appellant on 21st July, 2000, i.e. One year and 10 1/2 months after the death of the employee and therefore, no illegality has been committed by the respondent Management in rejecting the application of this appellant for compassionate appointment because it was preferred after 18 months of the date of death of the father of this appellant and no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing W.P.(S) No. 4779 of 2004. Hence, this L.P.A. may not be entertained by this court.