Jharkhand High Court
Ajay Kant vs C.C.L Thr Chairman & Ors on 30 October, 2017
Author: Pramath Patnaik
Bench: Pramath Patnaik
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 926 of 2008
...
Ajay Kant, son of Suraj Kanti Ghashi, resident of Jarangdih, Qrs. No. MQ/129, P.O.
Jaarangdih, P.S. B.T.P.S., District Bokaro. ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. Central Coal Field Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Darbhanga
House, Ranchi.
2. General Manager, Cooking Coal Washery Division, P.O.-Katharam, P.S. Kathara,
District-Bokaro.
3. Personnel Manager, Kathara Washery, P.O. and P.S. Kathara, District-Bokaro.
... Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:- M/s. Amit Kumar Das and Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocates.
...
07/30.10.2017In the instant writ application, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 28.07.2007 vide Annexure-8, issued under the signature of Personnel Manager, Kathara Washery, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to forthwith give appointment to the petitioner under the provisions of clause 9.3.2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement.
2. The brief facts, as narrated in the writ application, are that the father of the petitioner, late Suraj Kanti Ghashi was serving under the respondents-Company, as General Mazdoor Category-I in Kathara Washery. While on duty, he met with an accident on 02.07.2005 and died. Thereafter, application for compassionate appointment under clause 9.3.2. of the National Coal Wage Agreement was made to the respondents-authorities and vide Communication dated 14.07.2005, the petitioner was asked to produce the necessary relevant documents for approval by the competent authority subject to medical fitness. Thereafter, another communication dated 01.08.2005 have been received by the petitioner, whereby it has been communicated that the name of the petitioner is differing in the official records as well as the official application submitted in Godda Thana. Therefore, the petitioner has been directed to submit the necessary documents alongwith formal application. In pursuance to the communication of the respondents, the petitioner submitted all the required 2 documents. Thereafter, on 10.05.2007, the Personnel Manager, Kathara Coal Washery (Respondent No. 3) has again issued one communication by which the petitioner was directed to submit indemnity bond. Thereafter, the petitioner has been communicated vide order dated 10.10.2007, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment has been rejected vide order dated 28.07.2007. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post on compassionate ground, the petitioner, left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, has knocked the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
3. Heard Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Amit Kumar Das being assisted by Mr. Chandrajeet Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents-CCL.
4. Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has submitted that there are clinching documents to show that the petitioner is the son of the deceased-employee and the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been done in a very whimsical, arbitrary and high handed manner, which amounts to colourable exercise of power, thereby being breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents-authorities being a Public Sector Enterprise ought to have acted in a rational manner and hyper-technicality ought not to have stood as an impediment for appointment to the post in question on compassionate ground. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of this Court reported in 2008 (3) JLJR 139, Santosh Kumar-versus-Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi & Ors. and submits that the case of the petitioner may be disposed of in the light of the aforesaid judgment.
5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein, it has been submitted that the relevant provision of the National Coal Wage Agreement governing the case of the compassionate appointment, inter alia, provides that the candidate for employment should be dependent upon the employee concerned. It has further been submitted that the respondent No. 1- 3 Company in order to ascertain the dependency and genuinity of the applicant relies upon the records of the Company, such as, Service Book and Service Sheet Excerpts, Gratuity Nomination form, LTC/LLTC Form 'A' as well as CMPF declaration form 'A' annexed as Anexure-D to the affidavit. It has further been submitted that the petitioner's name does not appear in the LTC form 'A' as well as in Form 'D' for the Block Year 1995- 1998. It has further been submitted that the name of one Ajay Shankar appears in gratuity nomination form 'F', but the entry of the said name is a subsequent entry, which is clearly evident from the gratuity nomination form 'F'. The said gratuity nomination form 'F' is dated-15.10.1986 and therein, age of Ajay Shankar has been shown as 2 years, meaning thereby that his date of birth is 15.10.1984 as per Annexure-F to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that in the service sheet excerpts, the name of the petitioner appears but the said name is also a subsequent entry as per Annexure-G to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that in the aforesaid Service Sheet Excerpts, the age of the petitioner has been shown as 2 years on 02.02.1988 meaning thereby that his date of birth is 02.02.1986, which is not in congruence with the date of birth of Shri Ajay Shankar arrived at in the gratuity nomination form 'F' annexed as Annexure-F to the counter affidavit.
6. Mr. Amit Kumar Das being assisted by Mr. Chandrajeet Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents-CCL has vehemently submitted that in view of the disputed documents and alleged manipulation and interpolation, the respondents-Company has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, therefore, the impugned order dated 28.07.2007 vide Annexure-8, issued under the signature of Personnel Manager, Kathara Washery does not warrant any interference by this Court.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons :-
From some of the documents, such as, photo medical card, which was prepared by the respondents-authorities for giving medical facilities to the dependents, it is quite obvious that the petitioner is the son of the deceased-employee. There is no doubt 4 that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is to be decided as per the policy decision i.e. National Coal Wage Agreement. On perusal of the impugned order vide Annexure-8, it appears that the same has been considered without taking into consideration the relevant documents. In that view of the matter, the case of the petitioner requires to the considered by the respondents-authorities. The view of this Court gets fortified by the decision of this Court reported in 2008 (3) JLJR 139, Santosh Kumar-versus-Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi & Ors. In the aforesaid case, this Court has been pleased to direct for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner therein, for compassionate appointment after holding enquiry in regard to his status. Further direction was made for re-appointment of the petitioner after providing an opportunity to place the relevant materials on record. Further direction was made to get the matter examined through the Police/revenue agency.
8. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order dated 28.07.2007 vide Annexure-8, passed by the Respondent No. 3. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.07.2007 vide Annexure-8, passed by the Respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh after examining the relevant records and the decision be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the decision taken thereon shall be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.
9. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands allowed.
(Pramath Patnaik, J.) APK