SS. NN. Pathak, J. - (1.) Invoking The Inherent Power Of This Court Under Article 226 Of the Constitution of India the petitioner has filed this writ petition for grant of employment on compassionate ground in place of his father who was a permanent employee under the respondent, and died on 10.01.1995 while he was in service.
(2.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in this writ petition is that the father of the petitioner Late Dewan Kumar was employed under the respondent company in the post of Blacksmith. After the death of father of petitioner, an application for employment on compassionate ground was filed by mother of petitioner as petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father. Thereafter, when petitioner attained age of majority, the mother of petitioner was given as option for providing service to the petitioner as a legal heir of the deceased employee on the ground of compensation. Thereafter, the matter remains with the respondent and the petitioner being assured by the Management that his case is under consideration and the Management intimated the petitioner that due to some discrepancy in the document of the employment of the petitioner, it has been returned back and asked some fresh detail by way of query from the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner replied by a letter and submitted before the Management and waited for the consideration of the respondent and approached before the Management but every time assurance given to the petitioner that his case is pending before the competent authority for consideration. The petitioner approached before the Management number of time but nothing was done nor any reply was given to the petitioner as to why he is not being considered for his employment on compassionate ground. Hence, this writ petition.
(3.) Learned Counsel For The Petitioner Submits That Though He Had made an application for appointment on compassionate ground within time but the same has not been considered till date and in the year 2009 i.e. on 24.03.2009 the respondents have asked for appearing before them with all the documents and thereafter nothing has been done though several assurances have been given for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is only from the counter affidavit the petitioner has come to know that his case has been rejected on 30.04.2003/02.05.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when his case was rejected on 30.04.2003/02.05.2003 what was the occasion for the management of BCCL to issue letter dated 23/24.03.2009 contained in Annexure2 of the writ application. Learned counsel further submits that Annexure2 is manufactured document at the behest of BCCL and the respondentBCCL is trying to misguide the Hon'ble Court and intentionally for extraneous consideration, the case for appointment has not been considered.;