- (1.) ALOK Singh, J. Husband of the petitioner late Shibu Manjhi, Greaser Helper in Madhuband Coal Washery had died -in -harness on 26.3.2005. Petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment on 14.12.2006. Claim of the petitioner, seeking compassionate appointment, was declined vide order dated 15/16.5.2008 (Annexure -6), on the ground that application, seeking compassionate appointment, was moved after 18 months, from the death of the worker, which could not be entertained, in view of the Circular No. 1195 -1270 dated 24.1.2004 issued by C.M.D., BCCL, wherein it was provided that no request/claim for employment would be entertained after 18 months from the date of death of the worker nor any such case would be forwarded to the Headquarter for consideration.
(2.) 2007(8) SCC 549 has vehemently argued that National Coal Wages Agreement (in short 'NCWA') is a statutory agreement and keeping in mind the beneficial provision made under the NCWA, respondents are expected to act reasonably. He has further argued that no limitation can be provided for moving the application for compassionate appointment. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Mahto (supra), in para no. 18 has observed as under: - "That it is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether in the teeth of the provision of NCWA -V, the respondent at all had any power to fix a time -limit and thereby curtailing the right of the workman concerned. We would assume that even in such a matter, it had a right. But, even for the said purpose, keeping in view the fact that a beneficial provision is made under a settlement, the "State" was expected to act reasonably. While so acting it must provide for a period of limitation which is reasonable. It will bear repetition to state that expiry of the period of limitation was not taken as a ground for rejecting his application. Underage and non -placement of his name in live roster are stated to be the reasons. It is therefore unfair on the part of the respondent to raise such a plea for the first time in its counter -affidavit to the writ petition."
(3.) FROM perusal of para 18 of the judgment of Mohan Mahto (supra), it is thus clear that Their lordships of Supreme Court had not decided as to whether respondent had at all any power to fix the time limit to apply for compassionate appointment. However, their lordships had observed, in Para 18 itself, that period of limitation so provided, must be reasonable. H has further been held that application seeking compassionate appointment was not rejected on the ground of limitation, but was rejected on the ground of under age and non -placement of his name on live roster. Therefore, ground of limitation as per Circular of CCL shall not be allowed to be taken for first time in the writ petition by way of counter affidavit.;