Daleshwar Prajapati v. 1. Central Coalfield Limited through its Chairman Cum Managing Director having its Office at
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3092 of 2021 --------- Daleshwar Prajapati ... … Petitioner Versus 1. Central Coalfield Limited through its Chairman Cum Managing Director having its Office at Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 2. Director (Personnel), Central Coalfield Limited having its Office at Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 3. General Manager (P&IR), Central Coalfield Limited having its Office at Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 4. Chief Manager (P/MP), Central Coalfield Limited having its Office at Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 5. General Manager, Central Coalfield Limited, Kathar Area, P.O. Kathara, P.S. Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro 6. Staff Officer (Personnel), Central Coalfield Limited, Kathar Area, P.O. Kathara, P.S. Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro 7. Project Officer, Central Coalfield Limited, Sawang Colliery, P.O. Kathara, P.S. Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro 8. Deputy Manager (Personnel), Central Coalfield Limited, Sawang Colliery, P.O. Kathara, P.S. Bokaro Thermal, District- ... … Respondents Bokaro ---------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner For the Respondent-CCL --------- : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate --------- 07/05.04.2023 Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Namit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the letter issued vide Reference No. PD/ MP/ 9.3.0/ Regret/Kathara/2021/11 dated 06.01.2021 under the signature of the respondent no. 4, whereby and whereunder it has been held that the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment as per the Provision of National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) as the age of the petitioner was assessed and determined as 37‰ years on 28.10.2020. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the letter issued vide Reference No. PD/MP/9.3.0/20-21/464 dated 27.02.2021, by which in response to the representation of the petitioner it -2- has been intimated that his age was assessed to be more than 35 years as such his application for reassessment of his age cannot be considered. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider afresh the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner in view of the entries made in the service excerpts of the employee as well as the Birth Certificate and the Transfer Certificate issued by the concerned school along with other documents which indicate that the petitioner was eligible for being considered for compassionate appointment. The factual aspects of the case reveal that the father of the petitioner namely, Bhuneshwar Prajapati who was a regular employee of Central Coalfields Limited had died in harness on 30.05.2020. The father of the petitioner was working in the post of Fitter in Govindpur, Phase-II, Sawang Colliery under Kathara Area of C.C.L. The mother of the petitioner had made an application before the Project Officer, Sawang, Govindpur OCP, Phase-II Colliery requesting him to take appropriate action on account of the death of her husband. She also made an application for considering grant of service on compassionate ground to her son Daleshwar Prajapati (petitioner herein). The application of the petitioner was considered and he was sent to the Age Assessment Board for assessing his age and vide letter dated 06.01.2021 it was intimated that the age of the petitioner as on 28.10.2020 was assessed to be 37‰ years on which basis the date of birth was considered as 28.04.1983. The claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was therefore rejected as intimated to the petitioner vide impugned order dated 06.01.2021 and the representation submitted by the petitioner was also rejected which also is subject to challenge in the present writ application. It has been submitted by Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a literate and as per the School Leaving Certificate the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 05.08.1985. Learned counsel submits that even in the service excerpts of his deceased father -3- his age was recorded as three years on 24.06.1989. Learned counsel also submits that in all the relevant documents including PAN Card and Aadhar Card the date of birth has been recorded as 05.08.1985. Learned counsel further submits that the Birth Certificate issued under the Jharkhand Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 2009 also reveals that the date of birth of the petitioner is 05.08.1985. Learned counsel submits that even in the representation submitted by the petitioner he had mentioned about his School Leaving Certificate and the Date of Birth inserted thereupon but the same has not been considered by the authorities and in fact there was no occasion for the Management to have sent the petitioner before the Age Assessment Board. Mr. Namit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL on the other hand has submitted that since there was a dispute with respect to the date of birth of the petitioner he was sent to the Age Assessment Board for assessing his age which was found to be 37‰ years as on 28.10.2020, thereby disentitling the petitioner to claim compassionate appointment since his age was more than 35 years and, therefore, ineligible for such consideration. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 22.03.2023 a supplementary affidavit has been filed by him in which it has been stated that so far as the School Leaving Certificate is concerned, the same was never brought to the notice of the Management and as such no error or illegality has been committed by the respondent-CCL while rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The documents which have been submitted by the petitioner including the School Leaving Certificate indicate that his Date of Birth has been recorded as 05.08.1985. Though the Birth Certificate was obtained subsequently on 22.08.2012 which was submitted before the Management and there are certain other documents which have been relied upon by the petitioner but so far as the School Leaving Certificate is concerned, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on -4- 22.03.2023 as to whether the documents which were required for consideration on compassionate appointment were submitted by the petitioner or not the supplementary affidavit filed in response by the respondent-CCL reveals that the School Leaving Certificate was never produced before them for consideration. It, therefore, appears that the School Leaving Certificate indicating the date of birth of the petitioner as 05.08.1985 has been produced by the petitioner for the first time before this Court. Though the School Leaving Certificate was not produced by the petitioner before the respondent-CCL at the time of consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment but as it appears from his representation which has been brought on record as Annexure-10 to the instant writ application mention has been made about the School Leaving Certificate wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was indicated to be 05.08.1985. It, therefore, appears that it is not the first time the petitioner has come out with a claim that his date of birth is 05.08.1985 as recorded in the School Leaving Certificate but the same was also brought to the notice of the authorities through his representation though the said certificate was never submitted. Since there was some dispute with respect to the documents submitted by the petitioner relating to his date of birth his case was sent to the Age Assessment Board which had assessed his age and had come to a conclusion that he was 37‰ years as on 28.10.2020 thus disentitling him to claim compassionate appointment. However, as has been noted above, the School Leaving Certificate which was pivotal in the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner having not been brought to the notice of the authorities which could have induced a different dimension and which has been admitted in the supplementary counter affidavit to have not been produced before the
Decision
respondent-CCL, this writ application stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 4 to consider afresh the claim -5- for compassionate appointment of the petitioner by taking into consideration the School Leaving Certificate which is a part of this writ application and which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the present writ application and pass a reasoned and speaking order afresh on the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the respondent no. 4 shall not be influenced while passing the order by the earlier orders by which the claim of the petitioner was rejected primarily on the ground of the report of the Age Assessment Board. This writ application stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions. Alok/- (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)