Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) The petitioner in this writ application has challenged the order dated 25.4.2014 passed by the respondent No. 3 by which the claim of the petitioner for his appointment under Clause 9.4.0 of the N.C.W.A. on the ground that his father has suffered from permanent disablement has been rejected. A further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 3/4.2.2015 by which the claim of payment of the salary of the petitioner's father till the date of his superannuation from service, has also been rejected on the ground that the father of the petitioner had continued to remain absent from duties till the date of his superannuation (30.11.2010). Pertinent facts mentioned in the writ application are that the father of the petitioner, namely, late Moiuddin Mian was in the service of Central Coalfields Limited where he was working as clerk in Grade -Ill pursuant to his appointment dated 5.5.1973. It is stated by the petitioner that his father has started developing weakness in his limbs and after consultation with the Doctor he was referred to Central Hospital Nai Sarai where he was examined on 26.6.2006 and there being no improvement and considering his health he was referred to C.M.C., Vellore on 22.11.2007, for which necessary sanction was accorded by the authorities. Since the father of the petitioner was getting treatment at C.M.C., Vellore and was not able to discharge his duty an application was made by him on 9.5.2008 under Para 9.4.0 of N.C.W.A. for providing employment to his son i.e. the petitioner. However, the father of the petitioner superannuated from service on 30.11.2010. When the authorities were not considering the medical disability being suffered by him and being aggrieved by the same the petitioner had preferred writ application being W.P.(S) No. 270 of 2013 with a claim for payment of salary during the period for which the petitioner's father was not being able to discharge his duties. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 9.12.2013 directing the petitioner to submit a detailed representation, which was to be disposed of by the respondent No. 3 within a period of 12 weeks. The impugned order dated 25.4.2014 was passed pursuant to the decision in the writ application indicated earlier, in which the claim of the petitioner for his appointment was rejected. However, since no order was passed on the claim for payment of salary during the period, the father of the petitioner was absent from duties, Contempt Case (Civil) No. 248 of 2014 was filed by the father of the petitioner. A direction was given in the contempt by this Court vide order dated 16.1.2015 pursuant to which a reasoned order was passed on 3/4.2.2015 disposing of the representation by stating that since the father of the petitioner did not attend his duty till superannuation (30.11.2010) no salary is payable for the period of his absence from duty. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment as well as the claim of salary, the petitioner has preferred the present writ application.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset referred to para 9.4.0 of the N.C.W.A. and has submitted that since the father of the petitioner was not in a position to resume his duty and was medically unfit as would be evident from various treatment he had undergone under Clause 9.4.0 the petitioner should have been given appointment in place of his father.
(3.) Learned counsel submits that this fact has not been properly considered by the authorities while rejecting such claim. So far as payment of salary is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 3/4.2.2015 by submitting that the question of salary has not been properly considered by the authorities as at the instance of the Management the petitioner was referred to C.M.C., Vellore for treatment.;