CHHOTU MANJHI Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner's father who was missing since 1999, is said to have died on 24.10.2006 in harness while working as Piece Rated Worker (PRW) in Kuju Colliery under the CCL, now under Ramgarh district. His claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the impugned letter dated 21.5.2013 (Annexure-9) passed by the Respondent No. 3 - General Manager (P&IR), CCL on the ground that the employee remained absent from June 1999 to October 2006 and his family sustained for seven long years. Apart from that, application said to have been made on 26.2.2007 by the applicant, is not available in original and authenticity of the said application cannot be established.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure-4 application dated 26.2.2007 is validly received in the office of the Welfare Officer, Kuju Colliery, CCL. Photocopy of the said application has been forwarded by letter dated 4.3.2013 (Annexure-8) to the Staff Officer (P&A), Kuju Area by Welfare Officer, Kuju Colliery. He submits that there is no dispute that he made an application, but when the respondents are not able to find the original application, petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment cannot be denied on that ground.

(3.) According to the respondents, who have also filed their counter affidavit, petitioner's application was made in the prescribed format on 14.8.2012 after a gap of near about six years of date of death in the circumstances when the late employee was himself absenting from duty from June 1999 till his death on 24.10.2006 for more than seven years. According to the respondents, late employee was suffering from mental disturbance, as reported by his family members. At paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit, it has been categorically stated that the original copy of the said application claimed to have been submitted on a plain paper, is not available in the office of Colliery. As such, its validity or authenticity cannot be established. Counsel for the respondents submits that therefore, petitioner's claim being delayed beyond the stipulated period of one and half years, could not have been entertained and his assertion that he has made application in 2007, is disputed by the respondents.