DEBASISH KAR GUPTA,J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of the judgement and order dated August 18, 2014 passed in W.P. No. 506 of 2011 (Sanjit Bouri and Ors. v. Coal India Ltd. and Ors.) . The appellant, who are the respondents in the writ petition, have challenged the order impugned on three grounds. First, that this Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Next, that the writ petition was delayed and as such should not have been entertained by the learned Single Judge. Finally, that the writ petitioner was under age at the time of death of his elder brother, Ranjit Bouri, who was an employee under the appellant, i.e. on June 11, 1996.
(2.) Having heard the rival contentions of the learned Advocates for the parties as also upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the decision relied upon by the learned Advocate for the respondents/writ petitioner, we find that this Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. From a communication dated January 12, 2017 which is at page 28 of the paper book, we find that the Personnel Manager (Empl) had sent the same to the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Mugma Area and the office of the Personnel Manager (Empl) was at Sanctoria IA, Post Office - Shergarh, District - Burdwan, Pin - 713333. From the communication it appears that the case of the respondents/writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as writ petitioner) was considered by the Personnel Manager (Empl) in his office in the District Burdwan which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and as such we are not inclined to accept the first contention of the appellant.
(3.) On the point of delay it appears from the records that upto 2007 the candidature of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as an indirect dependant of the deceased employee of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. was being considered and it was only by a communication dated March 6, 2009 that his candidature was cancelled by the concerned authority on the ground that the writ petitioner was below 18 years of age as on the date of death of the deceased employee and did not attract any provision for employment.;