Rajendra Kumar Mahto, aged about 39 years, son of Late Govind Mahto, resident of v. …
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1601 of 2022 --------- Rajendra Kumar Mahto, aged about 39 years, son of Late Govind Mahto, resident of Village-Hewai, P.O. – Hewai, P.S. Keredari, District-Hazaribagh. Versus … … Petitioner 1. Central Coalfields Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. – G.P.O., P.S. – Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 2. Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Ltd. having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. – G.P.O., P.S. – Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 3. General Manager (MP & IR), Central Coalfields Ltd. having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. – G.P.O., P.S. – Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 4. General Manager, Amrapali Area, Central Coalfields Ltd., having its office at Dakra, P.O. _ Dakra, P.S. _ Khalari, District-Ranchi. 5. Project Officer, Amrapali of M & A Area, Central Coalfields Ltd., having its office at Honhey, P.O. & P.S. Tandwa, District-Chatra. 6. Senior Manager (P/MP), Central Coalfields Ltd. having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. – G.P.O., P.S. – Kotwali, District- Ranchi.
Legal Reasoning
------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------- …… Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. Uday Prabhash, Advocate Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate For the Resp.-CCL : Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate 06/Dated 29th March, 2023 1. The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the Senior Manager (P/MP), Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi has been challenged by which the appointment on compassionate ground of the petitioner has been cancelled by considering his age to be more than 2 the maximum age of 35 years as prescribed as upper age limit under clause 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated herein, read as under: The petitioner’s father, namely, Late Govind Mahto while working as Sr. Clerk at Magadh Open Cast Project under M&A area of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. had died on 14.10.2016. Upon the death of the petitioner’s father, the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground under the provision of clause 9.3.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement was considered and was offered employment as Cat-I(T) vide letter dated 08.08.2017. The petitioner was medically examined by M/s CCL and was declared medically fit and thereafter, he joined the employment in Security Department at H/Q Ranchi on 23.08.2017. Thereafter, he was transferred to Magadh & Amrapali area of M/s CCL by an order dated 11.12.2017. Thereafter, he was subjected to his age-assessment by the CCL Medical Board on 14.02.2018 on the ground that he was non- matriculate which was assessed to be in between 35 to 40 years and taking the mid-point, his age was determined as 36 years 02 months and 26 days on the date of his initial application for employment on 10.11.2016 and cancelled his appointment by the impugned order dated 04.05.2018. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 04.05.2018 on the basis of the subsequent order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 687 of 2019 (Lilwa
Decision
Bhuiyan vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and Ors.) which was disposed of on 10.02.2021 wherein it has been laid down that the mid-point of the age if allowed to be taken that will be against the very object and intent of the National Coal Wage Agreement which provides of consideration of the cases for appointment on compassionate ground in case of death of the bread earner. 3 4. It has been contended that the aforesaid direction has been passed by the Division Bench of this Court by taking into consideration the document dated 07.07.1992 in which the CCL has put its reliance to consider the mid-point of the age. The Division Bench of this Court has considered that the document dated 07.07.1992 is required to be considered for the employees who is already in service but when an application is being considered for appointment on compassionate ground, i.e., for the purpose of achieving the object and intent of the National Coal Wage Agreement, the mid-point as prescribed under the document dated 07.07.1992 if allowed to be taken, the same will hit the very object and intent, therefore, the Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusive finding as would appear from paras-14 and 16 of the judgment that the minimum point is to be considered so as to achieve the object and intent of the National Coal Wage Agreement. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered afresh on the basis of the observation so made by the Division Bench of this Court and after quashing and setting aside the impugned order, the matter may be remitted before the authority for its fresh consideration. 6. Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondent- CCL although has defended the impugned order by raising the argument that the mid-point has been taken and considering the same the petitioner was found to be more than the age of 35 years, the upper age prescribed under clause 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement, therefore, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error since the age of the petitioner was assessed to be 36 years 02 months and 26 days which is admittedly above than the age of 35 years but so far as the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Central Coalfields Limited and Ors. vs. Chandradeo Singh (L.P.A. No. 372 of 2021) is concerned, wherein the similar matter has been considered. In all fairness, it has been submitted that the impugned order has not been passed on the basis of such consideration. 4 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the document available on record including the impugned order. It is evident from the impugned order wherein the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the age of the petitioner was found to be more than the age of 35 years by taking the mid-point on the basis of the assessment made by the Medical Board wherein the age of the petitioner was assessed in between 35 to 40 years. 8. The contention has been raised that the respondent-CCL has considered the mid-point on the basis of the document dated 07.07.1992 but the said document is not fit to be considered so far as the appointment on compassionate ground is concerned since the same is required to be considered as would appear from the very content of the said letter that the same is applicable for determination of age of the in-service candidate. 9. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 687 of 2019 (Lilwa Bhuiyan vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and Ors.) and M/s Central Coalfields Limited and Ors. vs. Chandradeo Singh (L.P.A. No. 372 of 2021) wherein after taking into consideration the document dated 07.07.1992, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the said document cannot be given reliance in the case of consideration of appointment on compassionate ground. Such observation has been made by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 687 of 2019 as would appear from paras-14 and 16 thereof, which read as under: “14. We have already referred hereinabove about the principle to be followed in a case of beneficial legislation which is to be interpreted liberally so as to give it a wider meaning than a restrictive meaning which would indicate the very object of the Rule and admittedly the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a beneficial legislation and as such, the provisions contained therein may be construed taking the dominant purpose of the statute, intention of the legislature and underlying policy. We have also referred hereinabove that the NCWA is by way of providing social security measures by entering into an agreement with the Union under the provision of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same having the statutory fervor, the object underlying therein is to be considered. The foremost object of the said agreement is to act by way of providing social security measures to the employees and its dependant for which various provisions have been made to provide appointment in case of death of the bread earner as under Clause 9.3.0 and 9.5.0 of the said 5 agreement and, therefore, when the underlying object of the said agreement is to provide social security measures to the employees and their dependants, the same is to be treated by the respondent authorities in a way so that the object and intent of the agreement be achieved. The respondent CCL, however, failed to produce any decision of the authority, in case of consideration of appointment on compassionate ground, to take the midpoint of the age assessed by the Medical Board as has been done in the instant case, rather the document dated 07.07.1992 has been produced to assess the age of an employee by taking the midpoint of the age as has been assessed by the Medical Board but since it is not a case of an employee rather the case of a candidate who is seeking appointment on compassionate ground and, therefore, the said circular will not be applicable in the case of the writ petitioner and in that view of the matter, when the respondent authorities have asked the writ petitioner to go for the medical examination wherein the age of the writ petitioner has been assessed in between 35 to 40 years and taking the midpoint the age of the writ petitioner has been assessed as 37½ years of age, cannot be said to be an action to achieve the object and intent of the NCWA to provide social security measures to the dependant of the deceased employee, rather the approach of the respondent authorities ought to have been to consider the age of the writ petitioner by taking its lower point so that the object and intent of NCWA be achieved. 16. We, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, have gone across the order passed by the learned Single Judge and found therefrom that the learned Single Judge has simply gone across the contention of the respondent CCL wherein the respondent CCL has contended about the age of writ petitioner to be 37½ years which has been considered to be more than the maximum age of 35 years and, therefore, writ petition has been dismissed but we, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, are of the view that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact in entirety as per the discussion made hereinabove and reached to a wrong conclusion by approving the decision of the respondent CCL which according to us, cannot be said to be sustainable in the eyes of law.” 10. Further, in the case of M/s Central Coalfields Limited and Ors. vs. Chandradeo Singh, the same has been disposed by taking into consideration the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 687 of 2019. 11. It has been informed at bar that the order passed in M/s Central Coalfields Limited and Ors. vs. Chandradeo Singh has been challenged by filing S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Apex Court being S.L.P. No. 19183 of 2022 but the same was dismissed as groundless and misconceived vide order dated 14.11.2022. 12. This Court, after taking into consideration so made in the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court and also considering the fact that the view which has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court has been declined to be interfered with by the Hon'ble Apex Court, is of 6 the view that the claim of the petitioner is required to be considered afresh. 13. Accordingly, the order dated 04.05.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. 14. The respondent no.6 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 15. Regarding the claim and prayer for the period for which the petitioner has discharged his duty, as claimed, the same is required to be raised by the petitioner for its consideration before the respondent and if such claim will be raised, the respondent will consider the same in accordance with law. 16. In view thereof, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the above observation and direction. 17. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. Saurabh/- (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)