Bathlu Manjhi vs Central Coalfields Limited and Others

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Heard counsel for the parties.

The petitioner''s grievance in this writ application, is on account of the rejection of his prayer for grant of compassionate appointment, on the basis of the service of his father, who had died in harness while serving under the respondents CCL.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected only on the ground that there was delay of one month seventeen days in filing the application for compassionate appointment. Such period of delay was computed on the basis of the claim that the application ought to have been filed within a period of six months from the date of death of the deceased employee.

Learned Counsel submits that the ground of rejection of the petitioner''s application is totally misleading and misconceived and as a matter of fact, the respondent authorities had themselves extended the period for filing the application for compassionate appointment up-to one year i.e. February 2000 and the petitioner''s father had died on 26.11.1998, whereas the date of the rejection of the petitioner''s prayer is 23.1.2002. Thus, on the date when the impugned order was passed, the benefit of the extended period of limitation was available to the petitioner and yet, the same was not considered by the respondents. Learned Counsel refers to in this context to the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Satya Narayan Choudhary v. CCL 2007 (3) JCR 692.

Learned Counsel for the respondent CCL, while referring to the statements contained in the counter-affidavit, submits that originally, from the date of the death of the employee, the period of limitation was stipulated as six months and it is in this context that the petitioner''s prayer was considered and disposed of by the impugned order.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, it appears that on the date when the petitioner''s prayer was considered and the impugned order was passed, the period of limitation stood extended by one year and the benefit of such extension was applicable to the petitioner''s case also. In the case of Satya Narayan Choudhary (Surpa), an identical issue was raised and this Court had decided the same in favour of the writ petitioner therein. The ratio decided in the case of Satya Narayan Choudhary (Supra), squarely apply to the facts of the present case also.

In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 23.1.2002 (Annexure-2) is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned authorities of the respondents, who shall reconsider the petitioner''s prayer in proper perspective and in the light of the ratio decided in the case of Satya Narayan Choudhary (Supra) and pass a reasoned order, within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

With these observations, this writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondent CCL.