Ravi Ranjan, C.J. - (1.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents.
(2.) This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 19.03.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6133 of 2008 whereby the aforesaid writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant was dismissed chiefly on the ground of delay and laches in filing the writ petition at belated stage.
(3.) The facts in brief which would be necessary for consideration of lis stand enumerated as under. The appellant/writ petitioner's father Ganga Ram Manjhi, during the period of employment under the CCL, died on 30.04.1996. The mother of the appellant/writ petitioner died on 06.11.1997 and brother died on 17.12.1999 and none of them were offered any appointment on compassionate ground by the CCL. It is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that according to the service excerpts of his father, his age was recorded as six years on 01.04.1987 and as such at the time of his father's death on 30.04.1996 he was 15 years and 29 days old. After attaining majority, i.e., on 01.04.1999 he purportedly filed an application for appointment in view of the provisions contained in National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA)-V in particular, Clause 9.3.2 read with 9.5.0 (iii). Admittedly he filed such application after eight months and six days and according to the existing circular the application was required to be filed within six months. Obviously there was delay of two months and six days. However, the CCL refused to consider such employment of the appellant/writ petitioner for the reasons mentioned in the letter dated 13.02.2003 (Annexure-6). It emanates from the letter that the ground of non-consideration was delay of about three years while the time fixed for filing such application was six months. Reason for such delay is given that on 22.07.2008, the Circular was revised and the time period for filing such application was extended from six months to one and a half years then he filed the writ application. However, that does not appear to be very plausible explanation for the reason that his application was rejected on the ground of delay of three years which according to the appellant/writ petitioner was not a factual position rather the delay was only of two months and six days. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the JCC in its meeting dated 24.10.2011 again dealt with the issue of belated cases of compassionate appointment and vide minutes recorded, as contained in Annexure-9, it appears that the decision dated 22.07.2008 extending the period of limitation for filing application from six months to one and a half years was given a retrospective effect from 12.12.1995. This definitely brings the case of the appellant/writ petitioner within the consideration zone as according to the appellant/writ petitioner, the delay was merely of two months and six days. ;