IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No. 7153 of 2006
Lacho Bhuiya .... Petitioner
Versus
The Bharat Coking Coal Limited and another ... Respondents.
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.C.S.RAWAT
For the petitioner : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee
For the Respondents : xxx
25.04.2011
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs ;
1. for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding
upon the respondent to immediately and forthwith
provide service to the petitioner on compassionate
ground in place of his father who died in harness on
11.3.1997.
2. And/or for any other order/direction that your
Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances fo the present case.
2. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 11.3.1997 and
thereafter he moved an application before the respondents seeking his
compassionate appointment . The said application has not been disposed of by
the respondents and hence this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
3. The writ petition was contested on the ground that the
petitioner crossed the age of 38 years on 11.3.1997 and therefore he cannot be
employed in view of clause 9.4.0 (iv) of the NCWA. In Annexures A and B to the
counter affidavit, it is only stated that the competent authority has only regretted
the same.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the
petitioner’s application has not so far been disposed of and the correspondence
which were filed before this Court is in between the department of the
respondents which has not been communicated to the petitioner. He also
contended that the ground which has not been taken in Annexures A and B
cannot be supplemented by a counter affidavit and the learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the writ petition has been filed belatedly .
5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
6. From perusal of the records, it is revealed that Annexures A
and B to the counter affidavit clearly reveals that those letters were written in
between the department of the respondents. There is no iota of fact that it was
communicated to the petitioner and therefore the petitioner could not come to
Court earlier in time. The order which is said to have been passed,- though in
between the department,- only indicates that the competent authority has only
regretted the same, The counter affidavit filed before this Court shows that the
petitioner had completed the age of 38 years on the date of the death of the
deceased and that his candidature cannot be considered in view of the above
provisions of the NCWA. The said ground has not been taken in the
departmental correspondence (Annexures A and B to the counter affidavit)
rejecting the claim of the petitioner and no reason has been assigned for the
same. Annexures A and B to the counter affidavit have not been communicated
to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, it is not clear as to how he could
come to know that his claim for compassionate appointment under the Scheme
has been rejected. Even though it is assumed that such rejection was made
through inter-departmental communications as revealed from Annexures A and B
to the counter affidavit, now it requires consideration whether it is within the
requirement of law. Law requires that while considering the claim of a person
who claims appointment on compassionate ground, the authority should apply
his mind and then pass a speaking order while rejecting the claim. The
communications do not disclose reasons as to why the application of the
petitioner has been rejected. They have not applied their mind while rejecting the
claim of the petitioner in their inter departmental communications. Learned
counsel for the respondents could not demonstrate me that they have disclosed
reasons in any of their communications or any order communicated to the
petitioner. Thus, the communications as contained in Annexures A and B to the
counter affidavit are non-est in the eyes of law and as such no reliance can be
placed on the said communications.
7 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case,
the respondents are directed to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner
before the respondents within a period of two months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order, by passing a speaking order and the
said order be communicated to the petitioner immediately thereafter.
This writ petition is thus disposed of. No order as to costs.
Ambastha/- (J.C.S.Rawat,J.)