KULSUM BANO Vs. CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LTD., RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Rahul Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned counsel for the Respondent.

(2.) FROM the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the admitted facts of this case are: '' That the husband of the petitioner no. 1 was an employee under the Respondent -C.C.L. He died in harness on 7.4.2000. After four months from the date of death of the deceased -employee, the petitioner no. 1 being the widow filed an application before the concerned authorities of the Respond -ent -C.C.L., praying for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds to her son (petitioners no. 2), under the terms and conditions of the N.C.W.A. Agreement. In response, the Respondent -C.C.L. had issued a letter dated 3.9.2000, stating that since the petitioner's son for whom, the claim has been made, is a minor, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner no. 1 for grant of compassionate appointment to her son (petitioner no. 2) was rejected. The petitioner no. 1 thereafter filed second application on 12.7.2002, reiterating her earlier prayer for grant of compassionate appointment to her son, on the ground that her son by that date, has attained the age of majority. Instead of taking any prompt decision, the Respondents kept the matter pending and ultimately, by the impugned order dated 6.8.2004 (Annexure -8), communicated their decision rejecting the petitioner's prayer for grant of compassionate appointment to her son. The only grounds stated therein, for rejection of the player was that the name of the son, namely, the petitioner no. 2, did not appear in the service records of the deceased -employee.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Respondent -C.C.L. would submit on the other hand, that the Respondents have rightly rejected the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment, basically in view of the fact that the service records of the deceased -employee, does not mention the name of the petitioner No. 2, as being the son of the deceased -employee. Learned counsel explains further that the declarations made by the deceased -employee during his lifetime in the Gratuity Nomination Form, LTC/ LLTC Option Form, and C.M.P.F. do not reflect the name of the petitioner No. 2 and under such circumstances, the Respondents authorities have rightly arrived at the conclusion that there is nothing to substantiate the claim of the petitioner No. 2 that he is the son of the deceased -employee.