NARESH RAM Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.04.2000 (Annexure-8) passed by Personnel anager, Topa Colliery, whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Petitioner further prayed for quashing the order dated 24.07.2013, passed by General Manager (P&IR), C.C.L., Ranchi, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) It is stated that the petitioner's father namely Lalji Ram was working as Drill Helper, Category-II in Topa Colliery. It is further stated that while the father of petitioner was in employment, he died on 12.06.1993. Thereafter, petitioner's mother filed application on 06.09.1994 informing the management that on the date of death of her husband, petitioner was minor, therefore, she prayed that her son (petitioner) may be employed in service of C.C.L. after he attains the age of 18 years. Thereafter, she again filed another application on 25.05.1999 stating therein that her son (petitioner) had already attained the age of 18 years, therefore, he shall be appointed on compassionate ground, as petitioner's father died on 12.06.1993. The aforesaid application of petitioner's mother was rejected by Personnel Manager, Topa Colliery vide his letter dated 25.04.2000 (Annexure-8). Against that, petitioner filed an appeal before the competent authority. The said appeal was dismissed on 24.07.2013 (Annexure-9) by the respondent No. 3. Against the aforesaid two orders, the present writ application filed.

(3.) Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately after the death of the petitioner's father, the mother of the petitioner had informed the C.C.L. Authority that at the time of the death of the petitioner's father, petitioner was minor, therefore, he should be kept on Live Roster as per terms and condition of the Company Rule and whenever he will attain the age of majority, he should be appointed on the post. Thus, there is no delay in applying for compassionate appointment as mentioned in the impugned order. It is further submitted that in the year 2008, the respondents had issued a Circular wherein they have resolved that even if any dependent of the deceased is already employed in the Company, then also another dependent can be appointed on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced the said Circular for my perusal. Accordingly, Sri Ajit Kumar submits that on the basis of the aforesaid Circular, second reason for rejecting the application of the petitioner that his mother is in service, therefore, he is not in a distress, is not sustainable. He further submits that the reason given by the appellate authority that at the time of death of petitioner's father there is no provision to keep the minor on Live Roster cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Lakhan Kumar v. Central Coalfields Ltd. & others, 2006 3 AIRJharHCR 34.