Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) This application has been filed for a direction commanding the Respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. It is stated that petitioner's father namely Kanahai Saw was working under the Respondent No. 1 and died on 13.06.2007 in harness. Thereafter petitioner applied for compassionate appointment as per clause 9.3.0. of the National Coal Wages Agreement No. VIII. A counter -affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents, wherein it is stated that since the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the service book as well as in the service excerpts of Kanahai Saw, therefore, he is not entitled for appointment. It is submitted by Sri Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the National Coal Wages Agreement clause VIII, the dependent of deceased employee entitled for appointment on compassionate basis. In the said agreement, there is no stipulation that the name of the dependent must find place in the service book or any other service record. Under the said circumstance, the action of the Respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis is wholly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) On the other hand, Sri Anand Sen, Advocate for the Respondents submits that the Respondents had no other means, than to see the service book, for ascertaining dependency of the claimant on the deceased employee. Hence, the action of the Respondents is reasonable & fair. Accordingly, he submits that this application is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. From perusal of the record, it appears that father of the petitioner was appointed under the Respondents before the year 1987, whereas, it appears from Annexure -2 that petitioner was born on 12.02.1990. It further appears that petitioner's father gave information to the Respondents regarding the birth of the petitioner vide letter dated 06.10.2005 and requested that the name of petitioner be inserted in the service book. It appears from the remark column of above letter (Annexure -2) that the said application received in the office of Agent Bastakola Colliery on 06.10.2005. Thus, it is clear that father of the petitioner gave information to the Respondents regarding the birth of the petitioner. But in spite of said information, the Respondents had not inserted the name of the petitioner in the service book. Moreover, from perusal of provisions contained in Clause 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wages Agreement VIII, I do not find any stipulation that it is necessary that the name of the dependent of deceased employee must appear in the service book. Under the said circumstance, I am of the view that the action of the Respondents in not providing appointment to the petitioner merely because his name was not found in the service book is against the law.;