- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents-CCL. This is second round of litigation at the behest of the petitioner, who has sought compassionate appointment on the death of his father in-harness on 2.8.2011 from the post of Operator (Category-IV) under the respondents-CCL. Earlier on rejection of his claim by an order dated 27.9.2012 passed by the Senior Manager (Personnel), Kedla Washery, CCL, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6969/2012, which was disposed of directing the Director (Personnel), CCL, Ranchi to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate reasoned order within a stipulated period. The said order is quoted hereinunder:-- "According to the petitioner, though there is no cogent ground for refusal of petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground, a cryptic order dated 27.9.2012 (Annexure-4) has been passed by the Senior Manager (Personnel), Kedia Washery, CCL, denying the petitioner's employment on the ground of difference in date of birth and name. It has been stated that petitioner's father was an employee of the CCL, who died in-harness on 2.8.2011. After his death, the petitioner was entitled for appointment on compassionate ground but the respondents have arbitrarily turned down the petitioner's prayer by the aforesaid laconic order. It has been submitted that there is no valid ground for refusal of the petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground and even clear reasons have not been disclosed by the respondents. The petitioner, thus, protested against the impugned order through his representation, before the Director (Personnel), CCL, Ranchi, in the month of 2012, but till date no order has been passed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the writ petition. It has been submitted that the respondents have passed speaking order dated 27.9.2012 (Annexure-4) assigning reasons for refusing the petitioner's employment on compassionate ground. However, if the petitioner has protested against the said order dated 27.9.2012 by filing representation before the Director (Personnel), CCL, Ranchi, the same shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed. Considering the said submissions, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Director (Personnel), CCL, Ranchi to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate reasoned order within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order."
(2.) On consideration of the petitioner's representation, the petitioner's claim has once again been rejected by the impugned order dated 15.2.2013 (Annexure-5) passed by the Director (Personnel), CCL Ranchi. The present impugned order of rejection has been passed on the ground that the Matriculation Certificate produced by the petitioner shows his date of birth as 7.11.1989 while the other documents such as service sheet excerpts, PS-3 Form and LTC Form show variation in the date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate. The variation in the age of the petitioner appears to be more than the age as mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate and there is slight difference also in his name, as recorded in the service records, which shows Shankar Mahto instead of Shankar Kumar Mahto, as shown in the Matriculation Certificate. The said order has been assailed by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that there is no dispute about the identity of the petitioner, but only for difference in the date of birth, he should not be denied compassionate appointment for which an application was made within time from the date of death of the deceased employee i.e. 2.8.2011. It has been further submitted that on the second occasion, a new ground has been raised relating to the variation in the age of the petitioner, as compared with the Matriculation Certificate vis- -vis the service records maintained in the office.
(3.) On earlier occasion, the respondents were given time to obtain instruction whether any other dependant of the deceased employee like the petitioner's younger brother could be considered for compassionate appointment. The respondents in their reply have taken plea that now any application for compassionate appointment of any such dependant would be barred by limitation after expiry of one and half years from the date of death of the deceased employee. The petitioner in his supplementary affidavit filed on 17.6.2014 has enclosed an office order dated 2.12.2013 issued by the General Manager (P&IR/R), CCL, which reads as under:-- "In continuation to this office letter No. PD/MP/age/DOB/O.O./2013/3616 dated 13.11.2013 wherein it has been concluded that in case an applicant seeking compassionate employment is matriculate, the date of birth recorded in the metric pass certificate or equivalent examination may be taken as a basis for reckoning the date of birth of the appointee and further that in the event of variation in age/date of birth reflected in the Matriculation Certificate of an appointee from that of the age/date of birth disclosed by the ex-employee in his/her service record, the genuinity of matriculation certificate will be got ascertained from the concerned Board. It has further been decided forthwith that if such variation in date of birth as per matriculation record vis- -vis company's record is up to the extent of 5 years, the employment proposal may be processed and verification of authenticity of the matriculation certificate from the concerned Board shall be undertaken by the concerned Project/Area immediately after issue of appointment letter and the outcome thereof should be reported to this end within 3 months thereafter. It has further been decided that where such variation is beyond five years, then the verification from the concerned Board should be undertaken by the concerned Unit before processing the case of compassionate appointment. This is for strict compliance please. This issues with the approval of competent authority.";