Jharkhand High Court
Central Coalfields Ltd. vs Jageshwar Mahto And Ors. on 20 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: [2006(2)JCR207(JHR)]
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Narendra Nath Tiwari
ORDER
1. The father of respondent-writ petitioner, late Jugal Mahto, who was in the service of appellant-Central Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as C.C.L.), died in harness on 14th September, 1999. The respondent-writ petitioner being the dependent, applied for compassionate appointment after ten months from the date of death of his father, though six months period was prescribed for filing such application. In this background, the appellant rejected his claim for compassionate appointment. Learned Single Judge having noticed another decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Roopna Manjhi v. Central Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2003 (1) JCR 324 (Jhr), allowed the writ petition had directed the appellant to consider the case of respondent-writ petitioner for compassionate appointment.
2. Counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of the Court a decision of this Court in Lal Mani Devi v. Central Coalfields Limited W.P. (S) No. 4461 of 2004, disposed of on 15th September, 2004. In the said case, compassionate appointment was sought for after delay of six months and it was noticed that vide Circular No. 7151 dated 12th December, 1995, M/s. C.C.L. prescribed limitation period of six months for filing application for compassionate appointment from the date of death of the deceased employee.
3. Having noticed the judgment rendered in the case of Roopna Manjhi (supra), the Court held that the judgment rendered in the said case is prospective and cannot be given effect to the death, which took place much prior to the judgment.
4. Similar case fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Public Instructions and Ors. v. K.R. Vishwanath reported in 2005 (6) Supreme 47. The Supreme Court having noticed that the application for compassionate appointment was filed beyond the period prescribed held that the Court cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof did not cover such appointments. There being limitation prescribed, the Supreme Court held that no compassionate appointment was permissible, if the application is made after the prescribed period of limitation.
5. The case of respondent-writ petitioner being covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Public Instructions and others (supra), his application for compassionate appointment being barred by limitation, no order could have been passed for his appointment. We, accordingly, set aside the order dated 24th March, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge and allow the appeal.