S.N. Pathak,J. - (1.) In the instant case the petitioners have made the following prayers:- i. For issuance of appropriate writ or writs, direction or directions, order or orders to set aside the letter No. G.M./R/Pers-Court cases/2016/793 dated 09.09.2016 issued by the Staff Officer, Rajrappa Area, C.C.L. whereby and where under he has rejected the claim of petitioner No.2 in respect to compassionate appointment in place of deceased son of petitioner No.1 i.e. Late Budhan Mahto. ii. For issuance of appropriate writ or writs, direction or directions, order or orders commanding the concerned respondents to consider the claim of petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment in place of his deceased brother late Budhan Mahto who died in harness and petitioner No.2 before the death of Budhan Mahto was residing with him in same house and was fully depended on him.
(2.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of the petitioner No.2 i.e. Deblal Mahto was working in C.C.L. and said Deblal Mahto died in harness leaving behind petitioner No.1 widow, Budhan Mahto, Sudhan Mahto and others as his dependent. The petitioner No.1 has applied for compassionate appointment for Budhan Mahto in place of her deceased husband enclosing the list of dependents of deceased Deblal Mahto. C.C.L. has given compassionate appointment to Budhan Mahto to look after all the dependents of late Deblal Mahto including petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2. Therefore, it is clear that after Budhan Mahto has got compassionate appointment Sudhan Mahto was his dependent and was living with him, it was within the knowledge of C.C.L. authority. The elder son of the petitioner No.1 Budhan Mahto was an employee of C.C.L. and was posted at Rajrappa Washery Project but he died in harness on 30.04.2001. The petitioner had preferred an application before the respondents for grant of compassionate appointment to her second son namely Sudhan Mahto on 12.06.2001 but however vide letter dated 15.03.2007 such claim was rejected on the ground that the name of applicant does not figure in the service excerpts of Budhan Mahto. The petitioner No.1 approached this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S)No.6562/2010 challenging the order of rejection dated 15.03.2007 issued by the respondents. The Hon'ble Court after hearing the Counsel for the parties quashed and set aside the order dated 15.03.2007 and remitted back the matter to the respondents with the following observations:- In such circumstances, therefore, the impugned letter dated 15.03.2007 issued by the respondent No.4 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.4 to look into the matter afresh with respect to the eligibility of the applicant who seems to be son of late Deblal Mahto who was also an employee of CCL. The respondent authority shall also take note of the claim of the petitioner of the purported remarriage of the wife of late Budhan Mahto. After consideration of the facts, as has been stated above, the respondent No.4 while considering the claim of the applicant, shall also afford personal hearing to the applicant and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order.
(3.) In compliance of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 03.05.2016 the respondent C.C.L. rejected the claim of the petitioner by speaking order dated 09.09.2016 holding therein that the applicant Sudhan Mahto in terms of the relevant provision of NCWA does not qualify for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment in the company and hence the present writ application.;