PODUGU RAMESH @ P RAMESH S/O LT P DANAIYA PERMANEN Vs. COAL INDIA LTD AND 5 ORS
LAWS(GAU)-2018-2-20
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on February 19,2018

Podugu Ramesh @ P Ramesh S/O Lt P Danaiya Permanen Appellant
VERSUS
Coal India Ltd And 5 Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

L. S. Jamir, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. B. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Coal India Ltd.
(2.) The petitioner's father died in harness on 11.10.2010 while serving under the respondents/Coal India Limited. Thereafter, the respondents issued a letter on 29.09.2011 to the petitioner's mother asking for submission of claim for dependent employment/ monetary compensation within 6 (six) months after the death of her husband. It was also mentioned that after 6 (six) months from the death of her husband, the case of the petitioner's mother will not be entertained in future. The petitioner accordingly made an application for dependent employment on 19.12.2011, however, the same was returned for re-submission in the prescribed format. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the application on 10.01.2012. The claim was rejected by the respondents on 01.09.2012 on the ground of late submission of the application. Another order was passed by the respondents on 06.11.2015 indicating that the claim of the petitioner for dependent employment was not acceptable by the respondents in view of the discrepancies in his age as apparent from the service book of the petitioner's late father and the age recorded in his HSLC Admit Card. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by way of WP(C) 3091/2016. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 01.08.2016, whereby this Court observed that the application dated 19.12.2011 and the subsequent application dated 10.01.2012 was within 6 (six) months time granted for submitting claim for dependent employment, particularly, taking into consideration that the information contained in the letter dated 29.09.2011 was issued beyond 6 (six) months of the demise of the petitioner's father. A very important observation was also made by this Court that the petitioner's mother did not apply for monetary compensation.
(3.) In the order dated 01.08.2016, in so far as the discrepancy in the age of the petitioner was concerned, this Court also made an observation that least regard to more reliable document i.e., HSLC Admit Card showing the age of the petitioner was made and the respondents could not have ignored the same. In that view of the matter, liberty was also granted to the respondents to verify the HSLC Admit Card with the Board of Secondary Education, Assam.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.