Kamlesh Mahto vs Central Coalfields Limited and Others

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Heard Sri Ratnesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ananda Sen, learned Counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for an order quashing the letter dated 19.02.2002 (Annexure-8) issued by the Respondent No. 5 whereby the petitioner''s prayer for his compassionate appointment under the terms of Clause 9.5.0 (II) and 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A. - V/VI was rejected on the ground of its being time barred.

The petitioner''s case is that his father Late Arjun Mahto was employed in the Saunda Karnapura Colliery of the respondent C.C.L. He died on 16.08.1996. His mother had predeceased his father in the year 1994. The petitioner claims that at the time of his father''s death, he was a minor of the age of 15 years, his name ought to have been kept on the live roster by the respondents for the purpose of providing him employment commensurate with his skill and qualification upon his attaining the age of 18 years as per the terms of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI. The respondent C.C.L. did not enter the petitioner''s name in the live roster.

The petitioner attained the age of majority on 24.01.2000 and thereafter he submitted his claim for employment before the concerned authorities of the respondent C.C.L. by filing his application in the prescribed format, on 06.04.2000.

After about a year, he was called for an interview on 19.04.2001 but thereafter the respondents did not convey any information in respect of his claim for employment. He filed his representations one after the other, the last being in June, 2008 and in response, he was served with a copy of letter dated 19.02.2002 which is an inter-departmental communication, conveying that his claim for employment was rejected on the ground of limitation.

Assailing the ground of limitation, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground of limitation cannot be made applicable to the petitioner since admittedly, on the date of his father''s death, the petitioner was a minor and he could have submitted his claim for employment only alter gaining his age of majority. Learned Counsel explains further that the petitioner had gained his age of majority only on 24.01.2000 and within less than three months thereafter, he had submitted his application well within the period of limitation. Learned Counsel adds further that even otherwise, considering the fact that the petitioner was of the age of about 15 years on the date of death of his father, the respondent C.C.L., in terms of Clause 9.5.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI, ought to have entered the petitioner''s name in the live roster for the purpose of offering him employment after he attains the age of majority. Learned Counsel would rely in this context upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mahto v. C.C.L. 2007 (4) JLJR 144.

Learned Counsel adds further that since the petitioner could know about the rejection of his claim for employment only in the month of June, 2008, he has preferred an appeal against the order before the concerned authorities of the respondents in August, 2008 but the same is still pending and has not been disposed of.

Per contra, the stand taken by the respondent C.C.L. in their counter affidavit is as follows:

(i) The father of the petitioner had died on 16.08.1996.

(ii) The deceased employee, in his declaration made on 01.04.1987 (Annexure-H) furnishing details and particulars regarding the members of his family, had declared that his son Kamlesh Mahto (petitioner) was aged nine years.

(iii) Accordingly, the age of, the petitioner on the date of death of his father was more than 18 years.

(iv) Under the scheme for compassionate appointment, as envisaged in the Agreement, at the relevant time (i.e. in the year 1996), the period of limitation for submitting application for compassionate appointment was six months. Such period of limitation was though extended from six months to one year on 01.01.2002 and for a further period of one and half year with effect from 07.11.2002 and ultimately fixed to one year by a later circular dated 19.03.2005, the petitioner ought to have filed his application within the then stipulated period of six months limitation.

(v) The petitioner''s application having admittedly been filed in April, 2000, i.e. more than three years from the date of death of the deceased employee, was not entertainable as being barred by limitation.

(vi) The question of entering the petitioner''s name in the live roster did not arise because on the date of death of the deceased employee, the petitioner had already attained the age of 18 years.

From the perusal of Annexure-H which is the copy of the extract of service records containing the particulars of the family members of the deceased employees, the name of the petitioner Kamlesh Mahto, son of the deceased, has been stated and his age has been declared as nine years as on 01.04.1987. Neither the genuineness of the document nor the entries therein has been denied or disputed by the petitioner. According to the entries, the petitioner''s age, on the date of death of his father was just over 18 years.

It is not disputed that under the terms of the N.C.W. Agreement, the period of limitation for submitting the application for compassionate appointment by the dependent male of the deceased employee was six months in the year 1996. The petitioner had admittedly submitted his application after more than three years of the death of his father.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would invite attention to Annexure-A(i) filed by the respondents which is a copy of the internal communication of the respondents and in which, at paragraph 24, the reason for delay in submission of the claim by the dependent has been noted as "The applicant/dependent was below the age of 18 years at the time of death of employee. Application processed after attaining the age of 18 years". Referring to the above endorsement, learned Counsel for the petitioner would argue that the aforesaid observation clearly indicates that the petitioner was below the age of 18 years at the time of death of his father.

This argument docs not appeal to reason considering the fact that even by strict calculation, the petitioner''s age on the date of his father''s death was 18 years and four months.

The judgment of the Supreme Court, referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the case of Mohan Mahto (Supra) would not be applicable to the petitioner''s case in as much as, in Mohan Mahto case, the writ petitioner Mohan Mahto was admittedly a minor of the age of 15 years on the date of death of his father and it is in this context, by referring to the terms of the relevant clauses of the National Coal Wage Agreement, that the observation was made that the name of the minor should have been entered and kept in the live roster for grant of employment on his attaining the age of majority. In the instant case, as would be evident from the materials available on record, the petitioner had already attained the age of 18 years on the date of his father''s death.

Even though the period of limitation was extended from six months to one year by a subsequent circular issued by the respondent C.C.L., it was not obligatory on the part of the respondents to consider the petitioner''s claim made after more than three years of the death of his father.

In the light of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.