Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Jharkhand High Court

Tapeshwar Nonia vs Central Coalfields Ltd. Through Its ... on 8 April, 2004

Equivalent citations: [2004(2)JCR437(JHR)], 2004 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 2126, (2004) 2 JCR 437 (JHA) (2004) 2 JLJR 337, (2004) 2 JLJR 337

Author: M.Y. Eqbal

Bench: M.Y. Eqbal

JUDGMENT
 

 M.Y. Eqbal, J.  
 

1. Heard the parties.

2. The matter relates to compassionate appointment. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 3.5.2001 passed by the respondent No. 6 whereby the application for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

3. The petitioner's case is that his father was an employee of the respondent CCL as piece rated worker in Kedla underground colliery in the district of Hazaribagh. He died in harness on 2.11.1997. The petitioner's mother filed application for compassionate appointment and she was called for interview on 23.4.1998 by respondent No. 6 with relevant documents. The petitioner's mother was told by the respondents to file application for compassionate appointment of the male son of the deceased husband who has attained 18 years of age. The petitioner said to have filed application for appointment on compassionate ground and the same was forwarded to the committee for a decision. The said application was finally rejected on 3.5.2001 by passing the impugned order. The respondent in their counter affidavit have stated that application for compassionate appointment was filed after the expiry of the prescribed period and further there was variation in the name of wife of ex- employee. The application for compassionate appointment was filed after the expiry of one year six months and twenty throe days as against the prescribed period of six months. Admittedly the petitioners application for compassionate appointment was rejected on 3.5.2001. The petitioner moved this Court after about two years i.e. on 6.8.2003. Moreover more than seven year have passed from the date when the deceased employee died. Petitioner has not pursued his claim diligently and, therefore, the very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated.

4. For the aforesaid reason I do not find any merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed.