CHANDANA RAWANI Vs. CENTRAL COAL FIELD LIMITED,
LAWS(JHAR)-2010-1-188
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on January 08,2010

Chandana Rawani Appellant
VERSUS
Central Coal Field Limited, Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is against the order dated 28./29.8.2002 passed by the respondents, whereby his prayer for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected only on the ground that the application for compassionate appointment was filed after expiry of the stipulated period of six months limitation. Counsel for the petitioner submits that such a stand cannot possibly be taken by the respondents and in fact, the petitioner's prayer has been rejected arbitrary and whimsically by the respondents. Learned Counsel explains that the petitioner had claimed for grant of compassionate appointment on the basis of the prevalent rule extended to the employees of the respondents under the terms of Clause 9.4.2 of the NCWA. The benefit of the aforesaid clause is available to the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner's father was employed under the respondents -CCL and he died in harness in December 1998. The petitioner, filed his application before the respondents for grant of compassionate appointment which was rejected only on the ground that it was filed after lapse of six months limitation period. Learned Counsel explains that though on the date of death of the petitioner's father, the period stipulated was six months but vide Circular issued on 1 January 2002, the respondents had extended the limitation period by one year with effect from February 2000. The petitioner's representation was considered and the decision was taken by the respondents authorities in the month of August 2002 and at that time, the extended period of limitation was applicable. The petitioner had admittedly filed his application much within the extended period of one year from the date of death of his father and therefore, the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment cannot be denied.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent submits on the other hand by reference to the statements contained in the counter affidavit and argues in support of the impugned order, that the petitioner's father had died in December 1998 and at that time, the period of limitation for filing an application for compassionate appointment was six months. The petitioner having not filed any application within the aforesaid period of limitation, his candidature could not be considered.;


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