KOULESHWAR MAHTO Vs. CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties finally.

(2.) PETITIONER is seeking a direction upon the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground.

(3.) THE case of the respondents, inter alia, is that petitioners name nowhere appeared in the service records of the deceased employee and therefore, his claim for compassionate appointment was rightly rejected. Thereafter when his case was taken up by one of the Union, the police was requested to enquire about the genuinity of the petitioner. The police did not confirm the petitioners contention that he was also called as Bhuneshwar Mahto, rather, the police found that the deceased employee had no son with the name of Bhuneshwar Mahto. However, the police reported that the petitioner is second son of the deceased employee. Regarding the said affidavit dated 17.8.1994 (Annexure -2) it is said that it is a manufactured document which will be clear from the other affidavit submitted by the petitioner of the same Notary Public and that such affidavit was never submitted with the respondents and that the petitioner has suppressed material facts from this Court. Learned Counsel, appearing for the respondents, also pointed out regarding the discrepancy in the age appearing in different documents and submitted that there was/is serious dispute about the genunity of the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that in any event, the petitioner has survived for about 10 years by now; and that the respondents are having surplus strength of manpower in its roll; and therefore, the respondents may not be directed to consider petitioners case.