S.N.PATHAK,J. - (1.) In the present writ application, the petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs: (i) For quashing the letter/order dated 29.11.2013 (Annexure 12) passed under the signature of Welfare Officer (respondent no.6) whereby the petitioner has been denied compassionate appointment only for the reason that she is the female heir of her deceased father, who was an employee of Central Coalfields Limited. (ii) Any of the reliefs which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstance of this case.
(2.) The factual exposition, as has been delineated in the writ application is that father of the petitioner Narayan Bhagat was an employee of respondent C. C.L. It was stated that mother of the petitioner had predeceased her father on 15.07.2005 itself which would be evident from the Death Certificate dated 09.03.2006. It is further stated that Narayan Bhagat had three children of whom the petitioner is the eldest which is clear from the Family Membership Certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Gumla dated 21.02.2009. The father of the petitioner namely Narayan Bhagat died in harness on 12.01.2008 and a death certificate dated 29.01.2009 has been brought on record vide Annexure 3. After the death of her father, the petitioner immediately informed the respondents vide letter dated 18.02.2009 whereby the petitioner was asked to submit a duly prescribed Form for her appointment on compassionate ground. It is further stated that soon thereafter the petitioner submitted duly filled up Form for her appointment on compassionate ground along with her application dated 24.02.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that she was born on 20.12.1991 and in support of which she has submitted the School Transfer Certificate and Birth Certificate and in the light of her application for compassionate appointment, she requested the respondent authorities for taking immediate steps for her appointment. Petitioner was asked to submit all the educational certificates and other concerned documents needed for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner in compliance of the directions of the respondents, personally appeared before them with all the concerned documents. The respondent authorities also enquired about her marital status. In support of which a certificate was submitted by the petitioner dated 26.11.2013 issued by the Mukhiya of her village. The respondent authorities vide letter/order dated 29.11.2013 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was below 18 years of age on the date of her deceased father and being daughter of the deceased employee, was not entitled to be kept in live roster under the provisions of N.C.W.A. (Annexure 12 of the writ petition) and hence this writ petition challenging the order of rejection.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order submitted that the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe and belongs to poor section of the society and she along with of her two sisters were fully dependent upon the deceased father who was admittedly an employee of C.C.L. and died in harness. Learned counsel further submits that the matter has been set at rest by this Hon'ble Court in catena of decisions and it has been categorically held that denial of employment on compassionate ground to a daughter is unconstitutional and that being so provision of N.C.W.A. as contained in Clause 9.5.0 III is also unconstitutional. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that age of the petitioner on the date of death of her father was 12 years and as she was minor which is evident from the birth certificate and school transfer certificate and as per the provision one post ought to have been kept in live roster and appointment should have been offered when she attained majority as per rule 9.5.0 of NC.W.A. Learned counsel vehemently argues that in view of several decisions of this Court, the impugned letter dated 29.11.2013 denying the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner, who is female, is fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel further submits that gender discrimination is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Learned counsel submits that rules prevalent on the date when application is considered are to be applied and not the rules prevalent on the date when application is made, the question of limitation regarding application of the petitioner for her compassionate appointment ought to have been considered by the respondent in the light of its own circular of 2011.;