The High Court · 2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A No.607 of 2023 Raju Nonia, aged about 40 years, s/o late Chhotu Nonia, r/o Makoli, Niche Dhora, PO-Makoli, PS-Chandrapura, District-Bokaro(Jharkhand) ...…… Writ Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. Central Coalfields Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, PO & PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 2. Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Ltd. having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District - Ranchi. 3. The General Manager (P & IR), Central Coalfields Ltd. having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District - Ranchi. 4. The General Manager, Central Coalfields Ltd., Dhori Area, P.O. Dhori, P.S. Chandrapura, District Bokaro. 5. The Project Officer, SDQ-3 Project, Central Coalfields Ltd., P.O. - Turia, P.S. Turia, District Bokaro. 6. Meena Devi, wife of Chhotu Nonia, resident of Village Phularitand, P.O. & P.S. Madhuban, District - Dhanbad. …… ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellant For the Resp.-CCL For the Resp. No.6 : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate : Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, Advocate : Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate --------- 18th March 2024 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. I.A No.2048 of 2024 This interlocutory application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 204 days in preferring L.P.A No.607 of 2023. 2. In this application, the appellant has stated as under: “5. That it is submitted that the appellant was communicated about the said impugned order 20.10.2021. On being asked from the Counsel at that point of time he stated that he tried to contact but he was unable to contact the Appellant. 6.That it is most humbly stated and submitted that the after demise of his Father, the Appellant along with his entire family was facing financial hardship and due to which he was unable to arrange fund for filing of the instant Appeal. 7. That it is further stated and submitted that the Father of the Appellant was the only bread earner of the Family and after his 2 L.P.A No.607 of 2023 sudden demise the entire family was facing financial hardships. It is further stated that after some financial assistance, he approached the office of the counsel for filing of the instant Letters Patent Appeal. 8.That it is further stated and submitted that the Appellant was unable to bear even the expenses pertaining to the application of the certified copy of the impugned order dated 23.9.2021. However after consulting the Counsel and arranging the funds, the Appellant made an application for the Certified Copy of the impugned Order and the same was delivered to him on 7.12.2023 and the same has been filed on 19.12.2023. 9. That it is further stated and submitted that the Appellant had no source of income and even today he facing financial hardships and due to which the delay of 204 days has been caused in preferring the instant Letters Patent Appeal. It is further stated that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional as the same has been caused due the financial problems of the Appellant. 10. That it is stated and submitted that the delay of 204 days in filing the instant appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional.” 3. In view of the averments made in the application, we think that sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for condoning the delay of 204 days in filing this Letters Patent Appeal and, accordingly, I.A No. 2048 of 2024 is allowed. L.P.A No.607 of 2023 4. Raju Nonia is aggrieved by the writ Court’s decision dated 23rd September 2021 to affirm the order dated 23rd Augst 2024. 5. By this order, the claim moved by the appellant seeking appointment on compassionate grounds has been declined by the Central Coalfields Limited (in short, “CCL”). 6. The writ Court observed as under: “ 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record it appears that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment within time on 23.06.2007 itself. However, due to the complaint made by one of the distant relative namely, Meena Devi; the case of the petitioner was kept in abeyance. The record further transpires that one of the ASI has informed the respondent-Company that one Smt. Mundri Kamin who is mother of the petitioner was also an employee of CCL and has two sons namely, Pran Nonia and Raju Nonia (Petitioner). Thus, the petitioner applied for it appears employment within the time frame, however, due to a complaint filed by one Meena Devi and the letter given by the ASI, the matter was enquired and remains pending. Further, after a detailed enquiry, his case was rejected in the year, 2014. Even otherwise, since now the petitioner is aged about 38 years; as such, no relief can be granted to this petitioner at this age. Since as per NCWA itself any person can be appointed in case of male on or before 35 years of his age. though that 3 L.P.A No.607 of 2023 8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ application stands dismissed.” 7. Mr. Kumar Harsh, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that any dispute as regards employment of the father of the appellant cannot be decided after his death and therefore the reason assigned by the CCL for not providing employment to the appellant cannot be countenanced in law. 8. Notwithstanding the aforesaid aspect of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the present Letters Patent Appeal. 9. As the materials on record disclose, there is a serious dispute about parentage of the appellant. There was a complaint made by Meena Devi who claimed herself wife of the deceased employee. This further appears that the claim of Meena Devi was that her husband was offered employment under the Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme in place of his mother Smt. Phulbasia Devi. Besides this dispute, the appellant was found to be involved in a criminal case vide C.P Case No.1459 of 2008. In that criminal case, the appellant was made an accused for committing the offence under sections 323, 379 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code along with Pran Nonia and Mundri Kamin; they all are said to be legal heirs of late Kishan Nonia. Though C.P Case No.1459 of 2008 was dismissed by virtue of compromise between the parties, the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case is not honorable acquittal and while so, the CCL can exercise its discretion not to offer employment on compassionate ground to a person who was involved in a criminal case. 10. For the foregoing reasons, L.P.A No.607 of 2023 is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Sudhir/ NAFR