ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28.2.2003 issued under the signature of Personnel Manager, Sirka, Central Coalfields Limited by which the petitioner was informed that his case on compassionate ground was turned down by the authorities of respondent CCL.
3. The petitioner’s case is that his father late Rani Surat Yadav while working under the respondents died on 11.12.2000 leaving behind his widow, sons and daughters including the petitioner. After his death the widow requested the respondents through an application to provide employment to her son, namely. Santosh Kumar Yadav. The application for employment was turned down for want of documents. The petitioner again submitted all the documents including the matriculation certificate, school leaving certificate showing date of birth, parentage along with an affidavit of widow in support of the case that the petitioner is the son of the deceased. A copy of the matriculation certificate, school leaving certificate have been annexed with the writ petition but the respondents have turned down the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. It is interesting to reproduce the communication of rejection which reads as under :–
“This is to inform you that your case for employment was regretted as your name is not appearing in the records of Company on the basis of your representation. Some more documents were examined, but as been considered by competent authority. This is for your intimation as conveyed by Staff Officer (Personnel) (A), Sirka vide letter No. CGM(A)/P/9.3..2/03/1582 dated 12/13.2.2003.”
Curiously enough, respondents have not denied the parentage of the petitioner in any paragraph of the counter-affidavit rather from the service excerpt and another papers enclosed with the counter-affidavit, it appears that the deceased-employee raised objection with regard to non-inclusion of the names of his children including the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent CCL has fairly submitted that the impugned order does not show that the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he is not the son of the deceased-employee. What is prevailing norms in the CCL for considering the case for compassionate appointment has not been disclosed in the impugned order.
5. For the aforesaid reason, this writ petiti7on is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondents to take a fresh decision for compassionate appointment in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.