- (1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the order, passed by the Payment of Gratuity Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, amount of gratuity has already been paid to the petitioner, who is son of the deceased employee i.e. mother of the petitioner and the observations, made in the order passed by the Payment of Gratuity Authority is to the effect that the petitioner is the son of late Dhaneshwari Karmali, Ex. Employee of the respondent Company. This order has been passed on 29th February, 2008 (Annexure 6 to the memo of petition), which has been accepted by the respondents, as no appeal has been preferred by the respondents. Now when the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment because of the death of his mother, who was an employee of the respondent-Company, the application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not the "genuine dependent" of late Dhaneshwari Karmali. This order has been passed by Senior Personnel Officer, Rajrappa Area, Central Coal Fields Ltd., Ramgarh, dated 1st February, 2006, which is at Annexure 3 to the memo of petitioner, which is under challenge in this writ petition.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the Senior Personnel officer of the respondent-Company has passed the impugned order holding therein, that the petitioner is not a "genuine dependent" of late Dhaneshwari Karmali and no evidence has been placed by the petitioner before the respondent authorities to that effect and; therefore, the impugned order has been passed on 1st February, 2006.
(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 1st February, 2006, passed by the Senior Personnel Officer, Rajrappa Area, Central Coal Fields Ltd., Ramgarh (Annexure 3 to the memo of petition), mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) It is alleged that the mother of the present petitioner, namely, Dhaneshwari Karmali, was working with the respondents and expired on 20th June, 2005. (ii) It appears that, thereafter, the petitioner immediately preferred an application for compassionate appointment. (iii) Meanwhile, the gratuity amount was deposited by respondent No. 1 before the Controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. This amount was also claimed by the present petitioner, being son of late Dhaneshwari Kaimali. Upon proper evidences under Sub-section (5) of Section 7 of the Act, 1972, the Controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, decided that the petitioner is the son of late Dhaneshwari Karmali, Ex. Employee of respondent No. 1 and, therefore, is entitled to the gratuity amount, payable under the Act, 1972 and, in fact, this amount has already been paid by the Controlling authority to the petitioner. Thus, the order, passed by the Controlling authority dated 22th February, 2008 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has been accepted by respondent No. 1, as no appeal has been preferred by respondent No. 1 against the said order. The observations, made by the Controlling authority, in the last paragraph reads as under: In view of the above, I hold, that Shri Shree Karmali, son of late Dhaneshwari Karmali, ex. Employee of the company is entitled to receive Rs. 1,91,995=00 (Rupees One Lac ninety one thousand nine hundred ninety five only) towards the gratuity payable by the company under the provisions of P.G. Act, 1972. No direction is issued to the opposite party. The applicant is advised to submit pre-receipt bill in duplicate within 30 days from the date of receipt of this finding under intimation to the controlling Authority. Given under my hand and seal, this day of 29 Feb'08. (R.B.Prasad) Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central) Hazaribagh & Controlling. Authority tinder P.G. Act, 1972 (iv) In view of the aforesaid observations, it appears that this order has attained its finality. The amount of gratuity has been paid to the petitioner as a son of late Dhaneshwari Karmali, Ex. Employee of the respondent-Company. (v) Now, when the application for compassionate appointment has been preferred by the petitioner, in pursuance of National Coal Wage Agreement, his application has been rejected, on (he ground that the petitioner is not a "genuine dependent" of late Dhaneshwari Karmali. How this reason has been given, is not reflected in the impugned order. In view of this impugned order, the petitioner is not getting compassionate appointment, though it has already been decided that he is the son of late Dhaneshwar Karmali. How the aforesaid conclusion has been arrived at by the Sr. Personnel Officer, while passing the impugned order dated 1st February, 2006, is also.not reflected in the impugned order.;