MONTI BAWRIN Vs. M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to consider the case of the petitioner for her appointment in place of her deceased mother Putna Kamin. Further prayer has been made to quash the communication dated 03.05.2013, by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected.

(2.) Mother of the petitioner, namely, Putna Kamin was an employee of the respondents M/s B.C.C.L. She died in harness on 27.08.1998. It is alleged that the petitioner was the only legal heir of the deceased. The petitioner applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 24.01.1999. No action was taken on the said application because the same was not in proper format. The petitioner again applied in the proper format. The petitioner claims that she was called before Screening Committee and the Medical Board, where she appeared. The Medical Board examined the petitioner and gave his report in the month of Jan. 2006. The petitioner claims that thereafter the petitioner was not given employment; rather vide letter dated 03.05.2013 she was informed that since her application was filed 18 months after the death of the employee, her claim cannot be considered.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order could not have been passed, in view of the relevant facts. He submits that the petitioner is the only legal heir of the deceased and was dependant upon her deceased mother. He submits that since it is admitted that the deceased died in harness, as per the Scheme of the respondents, the petitioner is entitled to get appointment.