The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Jhalo Devi ... Petitioner W.P.(S) No. 7299 of 2019 Versus 1. Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman- cum-Managing Director, Darbhanga House, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 3. The General Manager (MP & IR), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 4. The General Manager, Argada Area, Central Coalfields Limited, Argada, Ramgarh 5. The Staff Officer (Personnel), Argada Area, Central Coalfields Limited, Argada, Ramgarh 6. The Project Officer, Sirka Colliery, Central Coalfields Limited, Argada, Ramgarh
Legal Reasoning
--- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner For the CCL --- : Mr. Uday Prakash, Advocate : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, Advocate … Respondents Order No. 07 --- Dated 04th September, 2023 Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of that part of the order dated 20.11.2019 issued by the respondent No. 5 by which the claim of the petitioner to keep the name of her son Suraj Kumar in the live roster for employment in terms of the provisions of NCWA has been rejected. It has been submitted by Mr. Uday Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per the LTC record of 15.07.2016, the age of the son of the petitioner was mentioned as 11 years 8 months, which would mean that his date of birth was 25.08.2004 and therefore he was above 12 years of age at the time of death of the husband of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had also submitted the School Leaving Certificate as well as a Certificate issued from Radha Govind Senior Secondary Public School, which would indicate that the date of birth of the son of the petitioner is 04.09.2004. Learned counsel submits that without any basis the son of the petitioner was sent for age assessment before the medical board which had come to a conclusion that at the time of death of the husband of the petitioner, the son of the petitioner, namely, Suraj Kumar was less than 12 years of age and therefore 2. he could not qualify for being kept in the live roster. Learned counsel has further referred to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent CCL while submitting that it has also been accepted by the respondent authorities that the son of the petitioner was more than 12 years of age on the date of death of his father as per the LTC records. Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- CCL has submitted that since as per the medical board, the age of the son of the petitioner was assessed to be less than 12 years on the date of death of the husband of the petitioner as per the NCWA, the same prevented the authorities to keep the son of the petitioner in a live roster. It has been submitted that monetary compensation has been extended to the petitioner, but so far as the refusal to keep the name of the son of the petitioner in a live roster is concerned, the same is as per the norms. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Bandhua Mahto was employed in M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. and posted at Sirka Colliery under Argada area as a Driver Category-V who died in harness on 07.08.2017. Upon the death of her husband, the petitioner had submitted an application before the respondent No. 6 on 30.03.2018 along with relevant documents with a prayer for keeping the son of the petitioner who was a minor in the live roster for employment on attaining the age of 18 years. In the said application, a prayer was also made for payment of monetary compensation to the petitioner. In support of the contention that the son of the petitioner was aged more than 12 years on the date of death of his father, various documents including some educational certificates were also produced before the competent authority. However, a medical board was constituted by the respondents CCL and it was concluded that on the date of death of Bandhua Mahto i.e. on 07.08.2017, the son of the petitioner was less than 12 years of age and therefore since the son of the petitioner did not qualify to be kept in a live roster, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. However, so far as the monetary compensation is concerned, there was a direction in the impugned order 20.11.2019 regarding payment of the same to the petitioner. Mr. Uday Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in terms of the order dated 23.02.2023 has produced the original copy of the birth certificate dated 25.09.2004 from which it appears that the date of birth of the son of the petitioner is 04.09.2004. In the LTC form, the outward journey undertaken on 25.04.2016, the age of the petitioner has been shown to be 11 3. years, 8 months which would mean that the date of birth of the son of the petitioner would be around 25.08.2004. The petitioner though has brought on record his date of birth and also a Certificate issued by Radha Govind Senior Secondary Public School which consistently point to his date of birth as 04.09.2004, but the impugned order dated 20.11.2019 does not indicate that the veracity of the said documents or proper appreciation of the said documents have been considered by the respondent authorities and without any rhyme or reason the son of the petitioner was sent for age assessment which ultimately concluded the age of the son of the petitioner to be below 12 years of age, thus denying him to be kept in the live roster. The counter affidavit also basically reiterates what has been stated in the impugned order dated 20.11.2019 though at the same time it has been admitted that as per the LTC record, the age of the son of the petitioner was assessed to be 12 years, 8 months and 20 days on the date of death of the husband of the petitioner and thus, the impugned order dated 20.11.2019 seems not to have considered the various aspects of the case enumerated above and in such circumstances that part of the impugned order dated 20.11.2019 by which the claim of the petitioner for keeping her son in a live roster is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 6 to consider afresh the claim for grant of compassionate appointment to the son of the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Since there also appears to be a dispute with respect to the monetary compensation which has been extended to the petitioner and which is not from the date of death of her husband, the petitioner may represent the matter before the respondent No. 6, who shall deal with it in accordance with law.
Decision
This writ application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. MK (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J.)