Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) FATHER of the petitioner No. 1 - late Madhusudan Mahto was an employee of the respondent BCCL as an Electrician in Mahuda Washery when he was declared medically unfit on the opinion of the Medical Board in the year 2004 and pursuant to the letter order dated 13/14.08.2004 (Annexure -1), he was relieved from service with effect from 16.08.2004. Petitioner No. 1 admittedly is the son from the second wife - Gati Devi of the said employee. The claim for appointment of the petitioner No. 1 was rejected by the respondents through office order bearing No. 385 dated 02/03.08.2007 (Annexure -5) on the ground that he is the son from the second wife of the employee. It also indicated therein that the application could be made for seeking monetary benefits as per the company's rules Petitioner's have challenged the said order in the present writ application filed in the year 2013. Petitioners have also enclosed family certificate at annexure -2 where both first and the second wife of the said employee have been indicated along with other children i.e., two married daughters, the petitioner No. 1 being the son and three unmarried daughters. The employees is said to have died on 02.09.2010 as per annexure -6 death certificate. Annexure -7 dated 06.04.2010 and Annexure -8 dated 08.09.2011 have been enclosed by the petitioners which are inter -departmental correspondences relating to the claim of the petitioner No. 1 for appointment. A perusal of annexure -7 however also indicates that earlier, the claim of the petitioner No. 1 has been rejected.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied upon extracts of certain judgments in the supplementary affidavit such as, in the case of Srikanta Garai versus Coal India Limited & others in WPS No. 1720/2004 by Calcutta High Court as also by Learned Division Bench of this Court in WPS No. 4461/2008 and analogous cases. It is submitted that if the claim of appointment is not being opposed by any other person, respondents should have granted appointment to the petitioner No. 1 as he fell within the category of dependents under the relevant provisions of N.C.W.A. which was in vogue at the relevant point of time.;