IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 6998 of 2007
...
Dasu Ravidas ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Dhanbad.
2. The Director (Personnel), B.C.C.L., Dhanbad.
3. The General Manager (Personnel), B.C.C.L., Dhanbad.
4.The Chief Personnel Manager, Govindpur Colliery Area, B.C.C.L.,
Dhanbad.
5. The Senior Personnel Officer, Govindpur Colliery, B.C.C.L., Dhanbad.
6. The Area Personnel Manager, Govindpur Colliery, B.C.C.L., Dhanbad.
7. The Project Officer, Govindpur Colliery, B.C.C.L., Dhanbad.
... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - M/s. M. K. Sinha, Ajit Kr., D.K. Pathak,
Rakhi Suman, V. Kr. Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondents : - Mr. A. K. Mehta, Advocate.
...
9/21.01.2010
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this
case is being heard for disposal at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon
the Respondents to grant him compassionate appointment as per the provisions of
Clause 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A. V on the basis of his father’s service under the
Respondents. A further prayer has been made for directing the Respondents to pay
the balance of the retiral benefits of the petitioner’s deceased father alongwith
interest.
3. Upon hearing the rival submissions, the controversy appears to
involve disputed question of facts as to whether the petitioner’s claim of his being the
son of the deceased-employee, namely, late Khiru Das should be accepted by the
Respondents or not. The controversy arises on account of the denial of the
Respondents to acknowledge the petitioner being the son of the deceased-employee
on the ground that in none of the service records of the deceased-employee, does the
name of the petitioner transpire.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the
petitioner’s name may not appear in any of the service records of the deceased-
employee, yet, considering the fact that the Respondents had themselves supplied the
requisite proforma to the petitioner for submitting his application for compassionate
appointment and in one of the clauses of the proforma, the certificate regarding the
relation of the applicant of the deceased-employee has to be given by a competent
Government authority, and such Certificate having been given by the B.D.O. and the
‘Mukhia’, the Respondents ought to have considered the same as an authentic
statement of the petitioner in support of his claim of being the dependent son of the
deceased-employee. Learned counsel submits further that during the pendency of this
writ application, a letter was issued by the Respondents-authorities to the petitioner
informing him that his prayer for compassionate appointment has been rejected. The
corresponding prayer for quashing the letter could not be included in the writ
application by the petitioner due to the fact, as stated above, that such letter was
issued during the pendency of this writ application. Learned counsel submits further,
that the impugned prayer of the petitioner would also encompass the prayer for
quashing the decision communicated by the aforesaid letter.
5. Learned counsel adds further that even though the petitioner had
produced relevant documents including the certificates of the Government officers,
the Respondents while rejecting the petitioner’s prayer on the aforesaid grounds have
not denied or disputed categorically the genuineness of such Certificates and
documents as produced by the petitioner.
6. From the above facts and circumstances, these disputed question of
facts cannot be resolved by this Court and it obviously needs a detailed enquiry to be
made in order to ascertain as to whether the petitioner’s claim of his being the son of
the deceased-employee is to be accepted or not.
7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the concerned
authorities of the Respondents-B.C.C.L. are directed to reconsider the petitioner’s
case in the light of his claim of being the dependent of the deceased-employee and
for such purposes, the Respondents may conduct any enquiry and in whatever
manner they desire, after giving advance notice to the petitioner of being heard and
take an appropriate decision and communicate such decision to the petitioner
effectively. This exercise should be initiated and completed preferably within a
period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
8. With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of.
9. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the
Respondent-B.C.C.L.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
APK