SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Jhk) 1227

Jharkhand High Court
S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J.
Rinku Kumari @ Riko Kumari - Appellant
Versus
C.C.L. - Respondent
WP(S) No. 4266 Of 2002
Decided On : 10 December, 2002

Headnote:Service Law – Compassionate appointment – rejection of claim on the ground of delay – application having been filed within one and half years, deserves consideration – petition allowed. (Paras 3 and 4)

ORDER

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. The father of the petitioner, Late Mathura Mahto who was in the services of M/s. C.C.L. in its Sayal D Colliery, Bhurkunda, Hazaribagh, died in harness on 16 January, 2000. The petitioner applied for the compassionate appointment as per Clause 9, 3, 2 of N.C.W. Agreement, but it has been rejected on the ground of delay in making application, vide order dated 8th March, 2002.

3. According to the respondents, the deceased employee Late Mathura Mahto died on 16th January, 2000, whereas the application for compassionate appointment of petitioner was submitted on 8th May, 2001 i.e. after fifteen months.

3. On the other hand according to the petitioner, she applied well within time i.e. within one year from the date of death as per circular dated 1st January, 2002.

4. It is a question of fact whether the petitioner applied within one year from the date of death of her father or not, but from the Annexures attached by the petitioner and not disputed by the respondent, it will be evident that the widow of the deceased while applied for the death benefits also requested for appointment of dependent, vide letter dated 19th June, 2000.

5. The Personnel Manager, Sayal by letter dated 9th November, 2000 asked the Block Development Officer, Patratu Block Hazaribagh to make proper verification of the dependent and to fill up the form as the case of the dependent of the deceased employee, Late Mathura Mahto is required to be considered for compassionate appointment as per Clause 9, 3, 2 of N.C.W.A.

6. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner having applied within one year--one and half year, she deserves consideration of her case for compassionate appointment.

7. Accordingly, the decision communicated vide order dated 8th March, 2002 is set aside with direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, in accordance with law within three months. In any case, the respondents cannot reject the claim on the ground of delay.

8. The writ petition is allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top