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

2019 Supreme(Jhk) 809

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Basanti Bai wife of Late Mangtu Ram - Appellant
Versus
Central Coalfield Limited – Respondent
W.P.(S.) No. 1958 of 2011
Decided on : 16-07-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondents:Mr. Atul Rai, Advocate

Dismissal order cannot be passed against a deceased person, and compassionate appointment applications should be considered within the prescribed period.

Headnote:

Compassionate Ground - Employment - The court remitted the matter back to the respondent to decide the claim of the petitioner in view of the provisions made under N.C.W.A. within a specified period.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash the order rejecting her claim for employment on compassionate ground after her husband's death. The respondent argued that the termination was justified due to unauthorized absence and late application for compassionate appointment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the termination order against the deceased husband was invalid, remitting the matter back to the respondent for a decision in accordance with N.C.W.A. provisions.

Issues: Validity of termination order, late application for compassionate appointment

Ratio Decidendi: Dismissal order cannot be passed against a deceased person, and the application for compassionate appointment should be considered within the prescribed period.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent for a decision within a specified period.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.:

1. None appears for the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Atul Rai, learned counsel appears for the respondents-C.C.L.

3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 05.01.2011 whereby the claim of the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground has been rejected.

4. It is contended in the writ petition that the petitioner’s husband late Mangtu Ram was a permanent employee of the C.C.L. and he was in continuous service till his death on 10.07.2007. It is also contended in the writ petition that the petitioner’s husband was suffering from mental dis-balance w.e.f. 02.08.2008 for which he was under continuous medical treatment of Dr. Bimlendu Kumar Singh. It is also contended in the writ petition that after the death of her husband the petitioner received an office order dated 17.08.2007 by which the late Mangtu Ram was terminated from the service on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer. The petitioner made an application for employment on compassionate ground under the N.C.W.A..

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-C.C.L. submits that as the husband of the petitioner was absenting from the duty unauthorisedly and without information w.e.f. 02.08.2002. He was charge sheeted on 17.07.2006 but he did not submit any reply and thereafter the termination order dated 17.08.2007 has been passed. He further submits that application has been filed by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground after the prescribed period of limitation and as such the impugned order dated 05.01.2011 has been passed.

6. Be that as it may, it transpires from the impugned order that the termination of the husband of the petitioner has been given w.e.f. 17.08.2007 whereas the husband of the petitioner was died on 01.07.2007. As no dismissal order can be passed against the dead person as such the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

7. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the C.C.L. particularly to the respondent nos. 2 and 4 and in turn they will decide the claim of the petitioner in view of the provisions made under N.C.W.A. within a period of eight weeks’ from the date of production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the decisions arrived by the respondents be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks’ thereafter.

8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.

9. Accordingly, I.A., if any stands disposed of.

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