- (1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.2004 passed in WPS No. 825 of 2004 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application holding that the application for compassionate appointment was rightly rejected by the respondents on the ground of limitation. For better appreciation, the impugned judgment is quoted herein below: This application has been preferred by the petitioner against order No. POP 34/9.3.2/02/148 dated 19 th April, 2002, as contained in Annexure 7, whereby and whereunder, the application of petitioner No. 1 for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected, being barred by limitation. The father of petitioner No. 1, who was in the services of M/s Central Coalfields Limited, died in harness on 9 th May, 1999. The petitioner at that time was minor. As such, on attaining majority, he applied for compassionate appointment on 11 th March, 2000. Admittedly as per the guideline, issued by M/s Central Coalfields Limited, six months time was prescribed at that time (in the year, 1999) for filing application for compassionate appointment. The petitioner having filed the application beyond the period of limitation, the application was rejected. Similar case fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court (Sushil Kumar Vengra v. The Union of India and Ors. decided on 29 th June, 2004 vide W.P.(S) No. 6589 of 2002), wherein the Court held that no application after the period of limitation can be accepted. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a delay of less than a month and, therefore, the respondents should not have rejected the claim on the ground of delay. However, such submission can not be accepted as this Court has no jurisdiction to condone the delay, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in a similar case i.e. Sushil Kumar Vengra (Supra) In the facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of rejection dated 19 th April, 2002. There being no merit, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The deceased workman late Baleshwar Mahto was in the service of the respondent -Central Coalfields Limited and working as Mining Sardar in the Pindara Colliery, Kuju Area. While he was on duty, he met with an injury and died on 9.5.1999 after 18 days of injury at Gandhi Nagar Hospital of the respondent -CCL. Since the appellant was minor at the time of death of his father and as such submitted application requesting the authorities to accept the same and he undertook to apply after attaining majority. On 11.3.2000 petitioner on attaining majority submitted application in the prescribed form and the said application was forwarded and sent to the Headquarter. The case of the appellant (writ petitioner) was that the Management decided to pay compensation to the dependant of the deceased but payment could not be made. The appellant, thereafter, submitted several representations to expedite the matter. Respondents however, communicated the decision by letter -dated 19.4.2002 by which application for compassionate appointment of the appellant was rejected on the ground of delay in submission of application. Respondent -Central Coalfields Limited in the counter affidavit have inter alia stated that the appellant applied for compassionate appointment after the prescribed time limit and being belated one and further when now a considerable time period has expired, he is not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ application. It is further stated that deceased father of the appellant died on 9.5.1999 and application for compassionate appointment was filed on 11.3.2000 i.e. after expiry of Ten months as against the time prescribed for filing application is Six months from the date of death of the deceased as per the Circular dated 12.12.1995.
(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties the undisputed facts, which emerge, are that the appellant was minor when his father died on 9.5.1999. It is also not disputed that after attaining majority the appellant applied for compassionate appointment on 11.3.2000 which is within time.;