Back
2020 Supreme(Jhk) 795
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ravi Ranjan, Sujit Narayan Prasad, JJ.
Miss Kiran Kumari, D/o Sri Ram Narayan Paswan - Appellant
Versus
Central Coalfields Ltd., having its registered office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, District Ranchi through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, P.O., G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi, District-Ranchi & Ors. - Respondent
L.P.A. No.229 of 2018 With I.A. No.4076 of 2018
Decided On : 08-07-2020
For the Appellant :Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ms. Ranjana Mukherjee, Advocate
The court emphasized the importance of conclusive and unimpeachable documentation in claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, and the need for adherence to statutory provisions.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Condoning delay - Section 5 - [Limitation Act, Section 5] - The court condoned the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, considering the reason assigned in the application and the ends of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's claim for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected by the respondent, leading to an appeal. The appellant's eligibility was disputed based on the absence of her name in the service records of the deceased employee, her mother.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the appellant's claim for appointment on compassionate grounds was justified as her name was not found in the service records. The court also noted doubts regarding the age documentation provided by the appellant.
Issues: The main issue was the appellant's eligibility for appointment on compassionate grounds based on the absence of her name in the service records and doubts regarding her age documentation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the appellant's claim for appointment on compassionate grounds was justified due to the absence of her name in the service records and doubts regarding her age documentation.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the appeal, upholding the rejection of the appellant's claim for appointment on compassionate grounds.
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No.4076 of 2018:
1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity.
2. The instant interlocutory application is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 19 days in preferring the instant appeal.
3. This Court, after taking into consideration the reason assigned in the instant application as also considering the fact that instead of dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation it would be appropriate in the ends of justice to decide the appeal on its merit, accordingly, the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal, is condoned.
4. In the result, the instant interlocutory application is disposed of.
L.P.A. No.229 of 2018:
5. The is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 27.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2912 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the order dated 28.02.2008 by which the claim of the appellant/writ-petitioner for appointment on account of death of her mother in harness, has been rejected, which has been declined to be interfered with.
6. The brief fact of the case which requires to be referred, reads as under:
The mother of the appellant/writ-petitioner was employed under the respondent-M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the CCL) as “Kamin”. She died in harness on 21.08.2007. The application for compassionate appointment was submitted by the appellant/writ-petitioner on 25.12.2007 but the same was declined on the ground that the name of the appellant/writ-petitioner was not found mentioned in the service excerpts of the employee, namely, Kumari Kunti Bhuini, Kamin Category-II.
The appellant/writ-petitioner produced a photocopy of the letter dated 27.03.2003 as has been annexed as Annexure-3 claiming that her mother had already submitted an application for entering name of her children in her service excerpts. The appellant/writ-petitioner also produced Form-P.S.-III and P.S.-IV showing therein the name of the writ petitioner as daughter of the employee, namely, Kumari Kunti Bhuini.
7. The writ petitioner has claimed that although by virtue of letter dated 27.03.2003 the request has been made to insert the name of the children of the deceased employee in the service excerpts but has not been inserted and further the writ petitioner has taken aid of the Form-P.S.-III & IV showing therein the name of the writ petitioner, basis upon which, the writ petitioner has claimed that she being the dependant of the deceased employee, therefore, as per the provision of National Coal Wage Agreement, in short NCWA, she is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground but the respondent authorities have rejected the same vide order dated 28.02.2008 on the ground that the name of the dependant of late Kunti Bhuini is not appearing in any of the five records, i.e., service sheet/ service excerpts, Form ‘A’, Gratuity nomination form and CMPF record and in absence thereof the case for employment cannot be considered.
The said order has been challenged before this Court invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the learned Single Judge has refused to show indulgence in the impugned order dated 28.02.2008 by dismissing the writ petition which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal.
8. Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ-petitioner has submitted that the ground of rejection for appointment on compassionate ground is not sustainable in the eye of law as the writ petitioner has been able to produce the Form-P.S.-III & IV disclosing therein the name of the writ petitioner as daughter of the deceased employee, namely, Kumari Kunti Bhuini but this aspect of the matter has not properly been considered by the learned Single Judge.
Further, submission has been made that the learned Single Judge
