Compassionate appointment claims cannot be denied based on alleged past fraud of a deceased employee when no action was initiated during their lifetime.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. U.K. Samal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Mr. N. Samal, learned counsel and Mr. S.D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party Nos. 1, 3 & 4 along with Mr. H. Mohanty, learned counsel.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of appointment on the death of his father vide the impugned communication issued on 10/11.07.2020 under Annexure-8 so issued by Opp. Party No. 4.

4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner’s father was appointed in the year 1991 as a Badali worker and subsequently was regularized as Mechanical Fitter. It is contended that while so continuing as a Mechanical Fitter at Lakhanpur Area of MCL, he died on 25.11.2013. On such death of the deceased employee, Petitioner being the son, made his claim to get the benefit of appointment in terms of the provisions contained under the National Coal Wage Agreement so executed on 19.01.1996.

4.1. It is contended that Petitioner though being the son of the deceased employee is otherwise eligible to get the benefit of appointment, in terms of the provisions contained under clause 9.3.0 of the Agreement, but such claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned communication dtd.10/11.07.2020 under Annexure-8 only on the ground that his claim is not covered under clause 9.3.0 of NCWA.

4.2. It is also contended that prior to issuance of the impugned communication, on consideration of the Petitioner’s claim, he was provided with the appointment vide order dtd.13.04.2015 under Annexure-4. After such appointment of the Petitioner, when he was asked to undergo the medical examination vide letter dtd.21.04.2015 under Annexure-5, Petitioner also found to be medically fit. But his joining letter submitted under Annexure-6 when was not accepted, Petitioner made a grievance challenging such action of the Opp. Parties in not allowing the Petitioner to join on the face of the letter of appointment issued under Annexure-4.

4.3. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner was found eligible to get the benefit with issuance of the order of appointment under Annexure-4, the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected vide the impugned communication under Annexure-8, is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court.

5. Mr. S.D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the MCL on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. Learned Sr. Counsel vehemently contended that after being provided with the appointment vide order dtd.13.04.2015 under Annexure-4, when it was found that Petitioner’s father has got the benefit of appointment by committing fraud and he was never a land oustee, basing on which he was provided with the appointment vide order dtd.05.07.1991 under Annexure-A/1, claim of the Petitioner though was allowed with issuance of the order of appointment under Annexure-4, but his joining was never accepted. It is contended that Petitioner’s father was never a land oustee and he was never a nominee of any land oustee and accordingly appointed order issued in his favour on 05.007.1991 under Annexure-A/1, cannot be taken as a valid appointment in the eye of law.

5.1. Placing reliance on Para 10 of the order of appointment issued in favour of the Petitioner’s late father, it is contended th