- (1.) ALTHOUGH , these appeals are barred by limitation, having regard to the points raised, we are of the view that the question involved should be heard and decided, and, accordingly, we allow the applications for condonation of delay and condone the delay in filing all these appeals.
(2.) ALL these five appeals involve the same and/or similar questions of law and fact and are, therefore, taken up together for hearing and disposal. Out of these five appeals, the appeal filed by M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. against Mino Devi is based on a Judgment dated 3rd March, 2004. The other appeals are all directed against a common Judgment dated 23rd April, 2004. In all the writ petitions, the common question was with regard to compassionate appointment as per the provisions of the National Coal Wage Agreement -V. Admittedly, the said Agreement makes provision for such appointment within the parameters, as indicated in the Agreement. Although, in the Agreement itself, no time limit has been spelt out for making an application for such compassionate appointment in place of a worker, who dies in harness, by a subsequent Circular, the time limit was initially restricted to six months from the date of death of the employee concerned and thereafter one year and one and half years, respectively, by two subsequent Circulars. The first Circular became effective w.e.f. 12th December, 1995, the second Circular which extended the period from six months to one year, became effective from February, 2000 and the last Circular became effective w.e.f. 27th November, 2002, extending the time further from one year to one and half years on the basis of a judgment delivered by this Court on 27th November, 2002 in Writ Petition (S) No. 4694 of 2002 (Roopna Manjhi v. C.C.L. and Ors.), see 2003 (1) JCR 324 (Jhr).
(3.) IN the instant case, it appears that the employees concerned died in harness prior to the publication of the second Circular and applications for compassionate appointments were made in some cases after the second Circular came into operation. The respondents in the writ petition rejected the claims of the various writ petitioners on the ground that they have applied for such compassionate appointment beyond the stipulated period of six months, as provided for in the first circular which became operative in December, 1995. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitions were moved before the learned single Judge, which as indicated hereinabove, were heard together, except the writ petition of Mino Devi, and disposed of by a common judgment dated 23rd April, 2004.;