JIBAN Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's grievance in this case is that his prayer for grant of compassionate appointment on the basis of the services of his mother who had died while under employment of the C.C.L., has been refused by the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner's mother Phulo Devi was employed under the respondent C.C.L. She died in harness on 10.01.1997. Within six months from the date of death of his mother, the petitioner filed his application praying for grant of compassionate appointment to him. However, he could not be granted compassionate appointment on the ground that he was still a minor and by a communication dated 23.03.1998 forwarded to him by the concerned officer of the respondents, he was given to understand that his application has been kept in abeyance as he was under age, It further appears that upon attaining the age of 18 years, the petitioner had filed a fresh application on 05.02.1999 seeking compassionate appointment not only on the ground that he has attained the age of 18 years but also on the ground that he is entitled for such appointment under the provisions of Clause 9.5.0. of the N.C.W.A. and he has also passed Matriculation. The petitioner's prayer was again rejected by the respondents on the ground that no right could accrue to the petitioner even under the provisions of Clause 9.5.0. of the N.C.W.A. Since such right could have accrued only if on the date of death of the deceased employee, he was of 15 years and more of age and thereupon his name could have been kept on live roster of the respondent company till he attains the age of 18 years for grant of employment.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that by taking a hyper -technical approach to the terms of Clause 9.5.0, the respondents have apparently wanted to frustrate the welfare security measures which were introduced in the N.C.W.A., to its employees and to the petitioner. Learned Counsel adds that as a matter of fact, the grounds pleaded by the respondents are also misleading in as much as, the petitioner's date of birth is 25.09.1981 and accordingly the petitioner was above the age of 15 years on the date of death of his mother and as such, his name ought to have been kept on live roster of the respondent company.