LITLAL MUNDA Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order, being No. 2275 dated 5.5.04 issued by the General Manager (P and IR), Central Coal Fields Limited (Annexure -10) whereby the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that the competent authority has not agreed to accept that Litlal Munda and Tirth Lal Munda is one and the same person.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that his father Dewan Munda was an employee of Central Coal Fields Limited posted as Mali Grade -I in the office of the General Manager, CCL Rajrappa area, District -Hazaribagh, who died in harness on 27.9.2001 leaving behind two sons, the petitioner (Litlal Munda) aged about 24 years and Umesh Munda aged about 15 years and one daughter aged about 12 years. In the service record and in the nomination form furnished in the department (Annexures -3 and 3/1), the petitioner's father had mentioned the name of the petitioner. After the death of father, the petitioner filed application for appointment on compassionate ground along with other necessary papers and for payment of death benefits. The petitioner also filed an affidavit in support of the claim, as was asked for. The petitioner's as directed, appeared before the screening committee on 8.4.03 and produced the original papers. The General Manager (P and IR), CCL, Darbhanga House. Ranchi by letter No. 5699 dated 26.8.03 requested the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh to make necessary verification regarding the petitioner's identity etc. The S.P by his Memo No. 2024, dated 17.10.03 sent the report to the General Manager (P and IR), CCL, Darbhanga House confirming the identity of the petitioner and specifically mentioning that Litlal Munda and Tirth Lal Munda is one and the same person and he is the son of the deceased Dewan Munda (Annexure -7). The respondents then paid the amount of gratuity to the petitioner by the Bank Draft issued in his name (Litlal Munda) [Annexure -9]. Surprisingly, the impugned order being No. 2275 dated 5.5.04 (Annexure -10) was then served on the petitioner whereby the claim of his appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that Litlal Munda and Tirth Lal Munda are not the same person. The grievance of the petitioner is that his father was illiterate and he could not know that some body had mentioned the name of the petitioner as Tirth Lal Munda in one LTC form which is being unduly used for disputing the claim of the petitioner. However, in all the relevant service records the petitioner's name (Litlal Munda) has been correctly mentioned but the respondents have arbitrarily rejected the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment on the said frivolous ground.

(3.) THERE are thus undisputed documents on record to show that the petitioner (Litlal Munda) is the son of Dewan Munda. The respondents have themselves produced the same. They have also paid the death benefits to the petitioner (Litlal Munda) by issuing the Bank Draft in his name. The only document on the basis of which the petitioner's claim has been rejected in one LTC option form in which Tirth Lal Munda has been mentioned as one of the sons of Dewan Munda. The said form has been filled up in English which bears the LTI of Dewan Munda. It has also not been disputed that Dewan Munda was an illiterate person. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the said LTC option form which was filled up in English was read over and explained to Dewan Munda and after coming to know its contents, he had put his LTI on the said form. Except the said entry in the LTC form, in all the relevant service records and other documents the petitioner's name Litlal Munda has been mentioned as the son of Dewan Munda. The S.P has also verified and has confirmed the identity of the petitioner as the son of late Dewan Munda. In view of the said overwhelming and uncontroverted/ admitted evidences on record, the reason assigned for rejecting the petitioner's claim by the impugned order (Annexure -10) has not base to stand. The petitioner's valuable right for consideration of compassionate appointment cannot be denied on such frivolous ground.