- (1.) Both the applications are heard together and disposed of by this order.
(2.) In W.P.(S) No. 2479 of 2014, the petitioner challenged the order dated 17.2.2005(Annexure-9), whereby the services of petitioner's husband namely, Bhuneshwar Ram has been terminated from the post of 'Dumper' operator. In W.P.(S) No.2480 of 2014, the petitioners challenged the order contained in letter No.1289, dated 25.4.2013(Annexure-19), whereby the application of son of petitioner no.1 for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the C.C.L. authority by a reasoned order. It appears that the husband of the petitioner no.1 namely, Bhuneshwar Ram was working in Religarha colliery of C.C.L. as 'Dumper' operator, Grade-2. It then appears that in the year 1998, he was declared sick by the C.C.L. hospital, but when he did not appear for further treatment, the hospital authority discharged him. Thereafter, the husband of petitioner no.1 never appeared for discharging his duty. It further appears that petitioner no.1 namely, Sukwara Devi informed the C.C.L. authority by letters dated 20.3.1998, 4.12.2002, 07.7.2003 and 16.1.2004 that her husband is missing from the house. Ultimately, she filed a certificate issued by Orissa Government that her husband died on 02.6.2006.
(3.) However, it appears from the record that because the husband of petitioner no.1 was not attending the office continuously without any information, a charge sheet issued against him vide charge sheet no. 10275, dated 10.2.2001 and on the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet, a departmental proceeding initiated against him. It further appears from the record that in spite of issuance of notices by the C.C.L. authority, the husband of petitioner no.1 did not turn up to defend himself, nor any document filed on behalf of the petitioner before the enquiry officer. Thus, the enquiry proceeded ex-parte and ultimately, the charges were found true. Thereafter, services of the husband of the petitioner no.1 was terminated by C.C.L. authority (Annexure-9 to W.P.(S) No.2479 of 2014), which is impugned in that writ application. It further appears that petitioners filed applications before the C.C.L. authority for compassionate appointment, but the same was not accepted. Thereafter, petitioners filed a writ application vide W.P.(S) No.7838 of 2011, which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.2.2013 directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners and pass appropriate order within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. It further appears that after receipt of the aforesaid order, the representation of the petitioners has been considered by the competent authority and disposed of vide letter no. 1289, dated 25.4.2013, whereby the representation of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the case of the petitioners do not come within the purview of the compassionate appointment, because the services of the deceased employee namely, Bhuneshwar Ram was terminated before the date of his death. The aforesaid order by which the representations of the petitioners rejected has been challenged in W.P.(S) No.2480 of 2014.;