MAHADEO KUMAR CHOUBEY Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reasons that the respondents are not giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner only on the ground that within eighteen months from the date of death of the father of the present petitioner, the application was not preferred by the present petitioner, otherwise no disqualification has been attached to the present petitioner.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in fact, there is no voluntary delay on the part of the present petitioner. By the act of law, he was restrained from applying for compassionate appointment. He was wrongly arrested on 30th June, 2004 on the basis of a false case, instituted against the present petitioner, which resulted into honourable acquittal on merits vide order dated 14th August, 2006. The said order is Annexure -2 to the memo of the present petition. Thus, for this unforeseen and uncontrolled reasons, which were not in the hands of the petitioner, he could not apply within eighteen months. Nonetheless, there is an application, preferred by the present petitioner dated 7th November, 2006. Thus, in fact, there is no delay, looking to the order at Annexure -2 to the memo of the present petition, releasing the present petitioner from confinement vide order dated 14th August, 2006. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the respondents and, therefore, the case may be remanded to the concerned respondent authorities to take a fresh decision on its own merits without considering the ground of delay in preferring the application. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Clause 9.3.0 of National Coal Wages Agreement, there is a provision for compassionate appointment of the legal heir of the deceased employee, if the employee has expired in harness. Father of the petitioner has expired while he was in service of respondent no. 1 on 6th June, 2004.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: