CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in W.P.(S) No. 2530 of 2014 is the review petitioner seeking to impugn the judgment dated 17th December, 2014 passed therein, which reads as under :- "Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) In order to avoid repetition the gist of the case of the petitioner as recorded in the order dated 1st July, 2014 is being quoted hereunder: "The father of the petitioner died in harness on 25th July, 2013 as a Clerk under the Respondent-Central Coalfields Ltd. He applied for compassionate appointment on 17th December, 2013 which has been rejected on 14th April, 2103 by the impugned order, Annexure-12 on the ground that he was more than 35 years of age. The petitioner has relied upon the transfer certificate issued by the Principal, Public High School, Kuju, Ramgarh, Annexure-8 on 29th November, 2013, as per which his date of birth is 25th January, 1981. He has also enclosed the matriculation cross list, Annexure-6 which indicates the same date of birth. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reason for rejection of the compassionate appointment might be the filing of the fresh nomination form, Annexure-2 by his father in which inadvertently the petitioner's age is indicated as 35 years on 28th August, 2008. However, according to the Implementation Instruction No. 76 at Annexure-10, the respondents ought to have recognised the school leaving certificate as laid down under Clause A(ii) as yardstick for assessing the correct date of birth of the petitioner which has not been done. Learned counsel for the Respondent-C.C.L, however, seeks and is allowed 6 weeks' time to obtain instruction and file counter affidavit. List this case thereafter under the appropriate heading."

(3.) The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. According to learned counsel for the respondents, there are three documents, which were furnished by the petitioner's father during service. One is at Annexure-C which is of September, 1992 and is a list of family members where the petitioner's age is shown as 19 years. Annexure-D is other document, which is L.T.C. Form-A and is dated 2nd January, 1991 where age of the petitioner is shown as 18 years. The other document is Annexure-E which is Fresh Nomination Form-G for the purposes of gratuity, in which the petitioner's age is shown as 35 years which is filled up on 28th August, 2008. Counsel for the respondent submits that the documents which are maintained in the employer office and furnished by the employee himself from time to time are taken to be material to judge the application of a dependent seeking compassionate appointment. Therefore, the petitioner's claim has been rejected as he had crossed 35 years of age at the time of death of his father on 25th July, 2013.