AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) BOTH the writ applications were heard together since a common question is involved. Accordingly, by this common order both the writ applications are being disposed of at this stage itself. Relevant Facts of WP(S) No. 1008 of 2003 The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents Central Coalfields Limited to provide employment to her son Jhanku Mahto on compassionate ground as the petitioner's husband Charka Mahto, who was an employee of the Central Coalfields Limited as TrammerIII posted at Rai Colliery, died in harness on 2.3.2002.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that her husband Charka Mahto, who was an employee of the Central Coalfields Limited died while he was in service on 2.3.2002 in Gandhinagar Hospital at Ranchi. As per the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement VI, the petitioner made an application before the Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Bachra, where her husband was posted, for employment of her son Jhanku Mahto on compassionate ground. By issue of Annexure - 2 dated 24.5.2002 the Senior Personnel Officer, Bachra, CCL, directed the petitioner to submit the required documents mentioned in the said letter for processing her case for appointment of her son on compassionate ground. Pursuant thereto the petitioner submitted all the required documents but by issue of Annexure. -5 dated 26.7.2002, the request of the petitioner for employment of her son on compassionate ground under Para 9.3.2. of the National Coal Wage Agreement -VI was rejected on the ground that the elder son of the petitioner namely, Lagan Mahto was already employed with the CCL against Land Loosers Scheme and, therefore, the claim for appointment on compassionate ground of her another son was not maintainable as per the prevailing norms of the Company. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner for appointment of her son Jhanku Mahto. on compassionate ground was rejected in most illegal and arbitrary manner. It is further submitted that the employment of the other elder son of the petitioner Lagan Mahto under Land Loosers Scheme cannot be said to be a bar for appointment of another son of the petitioner on compassionate ground. It is further submitted that the appointment under Land Loosers Scheme and appointment on compassionate ground are quite different from each other. Under the Land Loosers Scheme the employment is provided to those persons, whose lands are acquired for the purpose of the employer company, and, therefore, providing employment under Land Looser Scheme is just a matter of give and take formula, i.e., if the land is provided by a land owner to the company then in lieu thereof he shall be provided with an employment, whereas for compassionate appointment as provided under the National Coal Wage Agreement under Para 9.3.2. that if an employee dies in harness while in service, one of his dependent is provided an employment.
(3.) IN his reply to the counter -affidavit, the petitioner has given some of the instances, where the respondents have appointed those persons on compassionate ground even though other members of their family were under the employment of the Company under the Land Loosers Scheme. The case of Hopna Manjhi has been cited stating that his son Ram Lal Manjhi was appointed in the same colliery as Land Loosers and, thereafter, after the death of Hopna Manjhi his younger son Budhna Manjhi was given appointment on compassionate ground. Similar instance has been given of one Mahabir Manjhi whose son Mahadeo Manjhi was given appointment under the Land Loosers Scheme but after the death of Mahabir Manjhi his younger son -in -law Deolal Manjhi was provided employment on compassionate ground under the provision of Para 9.3.2. of National Coal Wage Agreement -VI. Similarly, it is stated that the son of one Bhagi Mahto and of Gyani Mahto were provided employment on compassionate ground though their other sons were already in employment under the Land Loosers Scheme.;