Jharkhand High Court
Azim Akhtar vs Ms Central Coalfields Limited Through ... on 6 January, 2017
Author: S. N. Pathak
Bench: S.N. Pathak
1
W.P.(S) No. 6063 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6063 of 2015
Ajim Akhtar S/o Late Jamiruddin, R/o Sohpur Umdi, P.O.& P.S. Paturi,
DistrictSamastipur (Bihar)
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. M/S Central Coal Field Ltd. Through its ChairmancumManaging
Director, Darbhanga House, Kotwali, District Ranchi
2. Director Personnel, CCL at Darbhanga House, Kotwali, District
Ranchi
3. General Manager, (P& IR), CCL, Darbhanga House, Kotwali, District
Ranchi
4. Chief General Manager (H), CCL, at P.O. & PS Argada District
Ramgarh
5. The Project Officer, CCL Project, Giddi 'A', P.O. & P.S Giddi, District
Hazaribagh.
6. The Manager Personnel, CCL, Giddi, 'A', P.O. & P.S Giddi, District
Hazaribagh.
.... .... .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate
: Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate
07/06.01.2017Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of directions upon the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground after the death of his mother.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The mother of the petitioner was an employee of M/s Central Coalfields and she was lastly posted as CatII in Giddi 'A' colliery P.O. and P.S. Giddi A' DistrictHazaribagh. The mother of the petitioner, Sarbari Begum got employment after the death of the father of the petitioner, late Jamiruddin, who was working in Giddi 'A' colliery in the year 1989. The mother of the petitioner, Sarbari Begam died in harness on 10.06.2002. After the death of his mother, the petitioner filed an application on 15.03.2003 for compassionate employment alongwith affidavit of his family members showing no objection. As per L.T.C., which was availed by the mother of the petitioner in the year 20012003, there was mention about the name of the petitioner in the 2 W.P.(S) No. 6063 of 2015 said document. It is also stated that as per relationship certificate issued by the C.O. Churchu, District Hazaribagh on 20.01.2003 and B.D.O. Churchu, DistHazaribagh letter dated 06.09.2003, it is apparent that the petitioner is the son of the deceased employee.
It is stated that the respondent no.6 informed to the petitioner through letter dated 07.08.2003 that his application is incomplete and the witnesses have withdrawn their statement. Upon such communication, the petitioner once again appeared before the respondent no.6 and completed his application and again produced witness of permanent employee of CCL and informed to the concerned authority that he was living at his native place and if any doubt regarding the genuinity of the petitioner, the same can be verified by the State authority and thereafter, the respondents sent letter to Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh and Samastipur (Bihar). As per the letter dated 21.01.2004 issued by the respondent no.6 for appearing on 28.01.2004 at 11.a.m. at the Project Officer, Office of Giddi 'A' before the Screening Committee/Examination with request to bring original documents with other dependent of late Sarbari Begum, the petitioner appeared before the respondents with all the documents, affidavit and witness of two employees of the CCL.
It is also stated that vide letter dated 24/29092003 of respondent no.5, the case of the petitioner has been referred to the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh for to ascertain the genuinity of the petitioner. In response to the above letter, the S.P., Hazaribagh through his letter dated 16.03.2004 has informed the respondent no.5 about the genuinity of the petitioner.
It is stated that the respondent has also sent letter dated 27.06.2006 to the Superintendent of Police Samastipur (Bihar) which was the native place of the petitioner, to inquire the genuinity of the petitioner. Vide letters dated 13.07.2006 and 15.12.2006 of Asst. Police Inspector, P.S. Patori, DistrictSamastipur (Bihar) and Superintendent of Police, DistrictSamastipur (Bihar) respectively, it was informed to the respondent no.6 that the petitioner is the real son of late Jamiruddin and late Sabari Begum of Village Satpur under P.S. Patori, 3 W.P.(S) No. 6063 of 2015 DistrictSamastipur. After receiving the enquiry reports of Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh in 2004 and Superintendent of Police, Samastipur (Bihar) in 2006, the respondent no.6 through his letter dated 3/07122008, once again called the petitioner to appear before the rescreening committee on 09.12.2008 for reexamination along with all certificates and other related reports in original and also with photo copy of duly attested affidavit of two witnesses of permanent employee of CCL. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the said Screening Committee with all the original papers and other required documents as well as two permanent employees of CCL as witness. Thereafter, the respondent No. 6 informed to the petitioner vide letter dated 6/07.09.2012 that his case under Para 9.3.0 of NCWA, was forwarded to the Area H.Q. and called to meet the respondent No. 6 immediately. It is also stated that petitioner again called along with original Identity Card and other technical educational certificates. Upon which the petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 6 along with original I.D and two witness of permanent employee of CCL. It is also stated that the petitioner was again called before the Committee constituted on 14.08.2015 along with the documents and 5 witnesses of CCL, but when the Committee members tried to take signature/thumb impression on blank paper, they did not put their signatures on it. It is further alleged that petitioner is facing different enquiry but no appointment letter has been issued by the respondents, hence, this writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a fit case for appointment on compassionate ground as the petitioner is the genuine and bona fide son of Late Jamiruddin and late Sarbari Begum of Village Satpur under P.S. Patori, District Samstipur, which has been fully established by the different inquiries conducted by the respondentsauthorities. Learned counsel further submits that due to mala fide intention, the respondentsauthorities have not issued appointment letter in complete violation of principles of natural justice.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that though admittedly, an appointment letter was issued in 4 W.P.(S) No. 6063 of 2015 favour of the petitioner by M/s CCL Hq. Ranchi vide No. PD/MP/Apptt/9.3.0/5550 dated 13.12.2011 but on an anonymous complaint received by Argada Area Office, the GM (P & IR), CCL, HQ, Ranchi vide his letter dated 09.01.2012 expressed his opinion to examine the case of the petitioner and also the merits of the complaint thoroughly. Later on, the letter dated 03.03.2012 conveyed the approval of the Competent Authority for keeping the said offer of appointment in abeyance, till the matter is enquired and a conclusive result is obtained. Learned counsel further argued that the Committee thoroughly examined the case details and arrived at the following conclusion in Paragraph 15 of the Counteraffidavit, which reads as under:
15. (I) That by appearance the applicant Sri Azim Akhtar appears to be a literate person but throughout, he has pretended that he is illiterate as may be seen from the application for employment and subsequent correspondences in which he has given his thump impression only. Even on 14.08.2015, he stated before the Committee that he is illiterate but by common sense, the Committee could not be satisfied itself that the applicant Sri Azim Akhtar is illiterate.
(II) That the fact the applicant Azim Akhtar could not get any witness is his favour to produce before the Committee, goes on to suggest that no employee was ready to appear before the committee as his witness, which further goes on to suggest that the genuineness of the applicant Azim Akhtar as son of Late Sarbari Begum is doubtful.
(III) That the fact that one of the earlier witnesses named Bindenshwari Singh, Store Issuer, Gidi A who gave his witness on 28.04.2003 in the application for employment preferred to withdraw his name from the list of witness to the application of Sri Azim Akhtar as per letter dated 28.06.2008 of the PM(MP), CCL, HQ, Ranchi goes on to suggest that the genuineness of the applicant is doubtful.
(IV) That further one of the witnesses named Moinuddin, Dumper Operator, GidiA colliery who had given his witness on 26.12.2013 in favour of the applicant Sri Aqzim Akhtar as son of Late Sarbari Begum and father's name being Jamiruddin, applied to the management of GidiA colliery vide his application dated 02.01.2014 to cancel the witness given by him, which goes on to further 5 W.P.(S) No. 6063 of 2015 suggest that the genuineness of the applicant Sri Azim Akhtar as son of Late Sarbari Begum is doubtful.
(V) That the application dated 07.10.2013 of the applicant Sri Azim Akhtar that he had applied to the concerned authority to correct the name of his father in Voter list, which further goes on to suggest that the applicant Sri Azim Akhtar came to this activity when he came to know about the complaint that his father's name was recorded as Md. Samim Akhtar in the Mandu Vidhan Sabha Voter List, which goes on to suggest that the genuineness of the applicant is doubtful.
Learned counsel also submits that in view of the aforesaid facts, the identity of the petitioner is doubtful and therefore, the present writ application is liable to be dismissed.
6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, the petitioner was offered an appointment letter on 13.12.2011 by the M/s CCL but on the basis of an anonymous complaint, the said appointment letter has been kept in abeyance and the matter has been enquired. After conducting the enquiries, the S.P., Hazaribagh and S.P., Samastipur came to a finding that the petitioner is the genuine and bona fide son of Late Sarbari Begum and late Jamiruddin. But the enquiry conducted by the RespondentsCCL reveals that the matter is doubtful as no witnesses from the employee of CCL, have comeforward for identifying the petitioner as a genuine and bona fide son of Late Sarbari Begum and late Jamiruddin and on that basis the CCLrespondent has come to a finding that the case of the petitioner becomes doubtful. The proper document for verifying the genuineness of the parents of the petitioner is the police report derived from both the districts i.e. Hazaribagh and Samstipur, the native place of the parents. The report goes to show that the petitioner is the genuine and bona fide son of Late Sarbari Begum and late Jamiruddin. Merely, on creating doubt does not take away the right of the petitioner from getting appointment on compassionate ground for which offer of appointment was issued to him as back as in the year 2011 itself after proper verification.
6 W.P.(S) No. 6063 of 20157. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and settled principles of law, I hereby direct the respondents CCL particularly, respondent No. 2 for taking immediate steps regarding consideration for appointment on the letter offered for compassionate ground in the year 2011 itself, if, there is no legal impediment other than the parentage dispute which has been duly proved by the enquiry reports produced by the S.P., Hazaribagh and S.P., Samstipur (Annex.9 & 10) in favour of the petitioner.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) punit AFR/ NAFR