Jharkhand High Court
Central Coalfields Ltd. And Ors. vs Arjun Bhuiya on 20 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: [2006(3)JCR113(JHR)], 2006 (2) AIR JHAR R 442, (2007) 2 JLJR 659 (2006) 3 JCR 113 (JHA), (2006) 3 JCR 113 (JHA)
Author: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
JUDGMENT
1. The case relates to compassionate appointment. The only question requires to be determined in this appeal is whether the case of the respondent -writ petitioner Arjun Bhuiyan can be considered for compassionate appointment?
2. The father of the respondent -writ petitioner, namely, (late Mala Bhuiyan ), who was in the service of the appellant M/s Central Coalfields Limited ( hereinafter to be referred as C.C.L.) and died in harness on 25th June 2000. -The dependent son i.e. respondent-writ petitioner applied for compassionate appointment after one year and two months ,which was rejected by the appellant on the ground that the application was time barred. Thereafter, when the respondent-writ petitioner moved this Court, the learned Single Judge giving reference of a decision of this Court in Rupna Manjhi v. Central Coalfields Limited reported in 2003(1) JCR 324 (Jhr.). allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to consider his case for compassionate appointment.
3. According to the Counsel for the appellants, judgment rendered in the case of 'Rupna Manjhi' (Supra) is prospective and cannot be relied upon in respect to the death took prior to the judgment. He placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in Lal Mani Devi v. Central Coalfields Limited in W.P.(S) No. 4461 of 2004 Disposed of on 15th September 2004 ,wherein similar view was expressed. In the said case it was noticed that only six months limitation period was prescribed by circular No. 7151 dated 12th December 1995 for filing application for compassionate appointment.
4. In spite of notice and its service , the respondent-writ petitioner did not choose to appear and to contest the case. The averment made by the appellant in the appeal has not been disputed.
5. In the case of Commissioner of Public Instructions and Ors. v. K.R. Vishwanath reported in 2005(6) Supreme 47, the Supreme Court held that the Court cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration to make appointment on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof did not cover such appointments. There being limitation prescribed, no compassionate appointment was permissible, if application is made after the prescribed period of limitation.
6. Admittedly, the respondent-writ petitioner preferred the application after one year and two months of the death of his father i.e. beyond the period of limitation. In such a situation it was not open for the Court to direct the appellants- respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment The question as raised is answered in negative against the respondent-writ petitioner.
7. We, accordingly, set aside the order dated 23rd June 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition W.P. (S) No. 1184 of 2003. The appeal is allowed, but there will be no order as to cost.