MADAN ORAON Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Late father of the petitioner, namely, Charwa Oraon was an employee of the respondent-Company and was working as L.M.D. Helper in Bachra Colliery and died in harness on 28.12.99. Petitioner submitted his application form for compassionate appointment on 30.8.2000. His case has been rejected vide impugned communication dated 24.1.2002 on the ground of delay. It is stated that the application has been preferred beyond six months from the date of death of the deceased-employee and competent authority has not agreed to consider the case for employment. It is alleged that this communication was not served upon the petitioner and he came to know later and thereafter preferred a representation. Mother of the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 24.6.2002 to make a mercy petition. It is stated that she made mercy petition to the Director (Personnel), CCL, Ranchi and also reminders but the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has not been considered. The main contention of the petitioner is that though initially the limitation for filing application for compassionate appointment was fixed as six months vide circular dated 12.12.95, however, subsequently this period was extended to one year and again extended to one and half year. Petitioner has placed on record the orders passed by coordinate Benches of this Court wherein directions have been issued to reconsider the case in view of the extended limitation.

(2.) In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that due to erosion of the Company's net worth, the respondent-Company was referred to B.I.F.R. on 23.11.01 and registered as case No. 502/02. The respondent-Company was declared a sick company and consequently several financial and administrative restrictions were imposed, such as, cost cutting measures, reduction in manpower and increasing output per man shift with a view to reduce losses to the Company. It is further stated that with a view to reduce the manpower Company has started offering V.R.S. Respondents have given the details of reduction of manpower during the year 2001-04. As many as 1440 persons were granted' V.R.S. during the year 2001-02, 883 persons were granted V.R.S. during the year 2002-03 and 1178 persons during the year 2003-04. It is accordingly stated that the Company has taken a decision not to increase the manpower including by way of compassionate appointment. The Company suspended the employment during the period 2001-02 and it was only when the financial position of the Company improved the respondent-Company decided to clear the pending employment cases during the financial year 2003-04. It is stated that period was extended to one and half year vide circular dated 19.6.2003 w.e.f. 27.11.2002 and thus petitioner's case is not covered by the extended period of limitation.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in 2005(3) JCR 269 (Jhr) in batch of Letter Patent Appeals. These appeals were directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge in "batch of writ petitions wherein a direction was issued to consider the applications for appointment filed beyond six months in view of the subsequent two circulars extending the period for making applications that had already come into operation. The Division Bench while declining to interfere with the directions of the learned Single Judge observed that the directions shall remain confined only to those writ petitioners. What has been observed by the Division Bench be noticed hereinbelow: