SHIV SHANKAR Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that late Nageshwar Mahto - father of the petitioner, who was under the employment of C.C.L. died in harness on 13.5.2002. Thereupon, the widow of late Nageshwar Mahto, filed an application before the authority for giving employment to her son, the petitioner, on compassionate ground, but the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the authority on the plea that the name of the petitioner does not find mentioned in the L.T.C. Option and L.T.C. Form 'A' and at the same time, his name also does not find mentioned in the Gratuity Nomination Form and that entry made in the service excerpts showing the petitioner as the son of late Nageshwar Mahto, is doubtful as the entry made in this respect is by different ink and different handwriting but none of the ground in the facts and circumstances of the case is tenable for rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

(3.) REGARD being had to the facts and circumstances, it does appear that order as contained in Annexure - 8, under which the petitioner's claim has been rejected has been passed on a casual manner without taking into consideration the documents as also the enquiry report, showing that the petitioner is the son of late Nageshwar Mahto and hence, it is set aside. In the circumstance, it needs a fresh consideration.