Jharkhand High Court
Yadu Sao vs Central Coal Fields Ltd., A Subsidiary ... on 29 April, 2004
Equivalent citations: [2004(3)JCR129(JHR)], 2004 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 2311, (2004) 3 JLJR 125 (2004) 3 JCR 129 (JHA), (2004) 3 JCR 129 (JHA)
Author: Amareshwar Sahay
Bench: Amareshwar Sahay
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged Annexure-4, dated 12.3.2002/15.3.2002, whereby, he was informed that his application for employment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that the same was filed after a lapse of more than one year and, therefore, his case has not been considered for employment.
3. The petitioner moved this Court earlier in WP (S) No. 1183 of 2002, wherein he made a prayer for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground and to pay the retiral dues payable to his deceased father who died-in-harness on 25.2.1999. It was contended in the said writ application that the respondents are not passing any order in that regard. This Court by order dated 14.2.2002, disposed of the said writ application with a direction to the respondents CCL that in such cases, such application for appointment on compassionate ground is pending before them, the same shall be considered and disposed of within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and they shall also take steps for payment of death-cum-retirement dues to the widow of the deceased. The order of this Court has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the present writ application.
4. It appears that pursuant to the order of this Court as aforesaid, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-4 has been passed, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of delay of more than a year in filing the application for such appointments.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the rejection of the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground of delay was wholly arbitrary, illegal and unjustified. It has been submitted that the application for compassionate appointment was filed on 26.2.2000 in the prescribed format before the respondents and, therefore, it was within a period of one year from the date of death of his father, who died in harness on 25.2.1999, therefore, it was well within time and, as such, the order as contained in Annexure 4 is absolutely illegal and is liable to be quashed.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has tried to support the impugned order (Annexure-4) on the ground that since the petitioner applied for such compassionate appointment after one year from the date of death of his father and, therefore, the respondents rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. This Court in the case of Roopna Manjhi v. CCL and Ors., reported in 2003 (1) JCR 324 (Jhr), has held that at least one and half year from the date of the death of the deceased employee should be allowed to the dependents to apply for compassionate appointment. The said decision was confirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 16 of 2003.
7. Since this Court by order dated 14.2.2002 in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. in WP (S) No. 1183 of 2002, had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and, therefore, in my view the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment could not have been rejected on the ground of delay in filing the application. The respondents should have considered the case of the petitioner on its own merit and ought not to have rejected on the technical ground of delay only. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the order as contained in Annexure 4 dated 12.3.2002/15.3.2002 rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is hereby quashed and thus this application is al lowed and the matter is remanded back to the respondents for fresh consideration of the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on its merit and to pass an order within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.