Sri Khoro Manjhi vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Petitioner in this writ application prays for a direction for quashing the order dated 11.9.2002, passed by the

appropriate Government, whereby it had refused to refer the dispute of the petitioner for adjudication on the ground of delay of 15 years in raising

the dispute.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the essential prayer of the petitioner was for his compassionate appointment under the

respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner''s brother, namely, Dailu Manjhi son of late Binwal Manjhi was an employee of K.S.P. (Ph-II)

of C.C.L., Posted at Bokaro Thermal within the district of Bokaro, who died in harness on 1.9.1990. It is further submitted that at the time of his

brother''s death, the petitioner was a minor and, therefore, be could not apply for his compassionate appointment in terms of the Scheme of the

employer on the ground of his brother''s service and after gaining the age of majority in the year 1990, the petitioner had immediately filed his

application before the concerned authorities but on finding no response thereto, the petitioner had sought to raise an industrial dispute and had

applied, therefore, to the appropriate Government but by the impugned order dated 11.9.2002, the appropriate Government had refused to refer

the dispute for adjudication merely on the ground of delay of 15 years In raising the dispute.

Learned Counsel explains that till date the Management of the Company has not rejected the application filed by the petitioner nor has passed

any specific order on the same. It is further explained that at the relevant time, that is, at the time of the death of the petitioner''s brother, there was

no rule of the Central Government stipulating any period of limitation for making the prayer for compassionate appointment, although, such a rule

has recently been introduced. It is further explained that the plea of limitation will not be applicable to the petitioner''s case in view of the fact that

he had applied for compassionate appointment as soon as he attained the age of majority and on the date of his application, there was no rule

whatsoever stipulating any period of limitation. Learned Counsel, while reiterating that the petitioner''s application for his compassionate

appointment has still not been finally disposed of, submits that the refusal of the appropriate Government to refer the petitioner''s dispute for

adjudication, would not come in way in any manner for the Management of the Company to consider the petitioner''s application even now.

No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in this case.

Considering the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to dispose of the application as filed by the petitioner to consider his

prayer for compassionate appointment in the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on the grounds stated, the

rule of limitation will not apply in the case of the petitioner and to pass a reasoned, speaking and appropriate order within three months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of.