S.N.PATHAK,J. - (1.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 12.09.2013 contained in memo no.Dy.GM (M)/POBHA/ Estb./13/3874 issued under the signature of Project Officer, Bhurkunda Colliery by which the prayer for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected on a totally false and frivolous ground that the petitioner is not genuine wife of the deceased. FACTUAL MATRIX
(2.) Husband of the petitioner namely Dinesh Rajwar was appointed under the respondent in view of the V.R. Scheme of his mother Smt. Janki Kamin, employee as ExPR in Dhori Colliery/unit under the respondent no.3. It is stated that the name of the petitioner was mentioned as wife in the Attestation Form furnished by the late husband. Husband of the petitioner was appointed as Face Crew trainee and posted at B.T.T.I., Bhurkunda vide office order No. PD/BRK/SFVRS/Training/99/4019 dated 05.10.1999. In pursuance to the aforesaid order (Annexure-3), the petitioner's husband was posted at B.T.T.I. and reported "ON JOB TRAINING" which would be evident from the office order dated 08.10.1999. The petitioner's husband completed training period successfully at Mine "B" Bhurkunda Colliery and thereafter he was released from Mine "B" Bhurkunda to B.T.T.I. Bhurkunda w.e.f. 01.09.2000 vide office order dated 31.08.2000 (Annexure-5). Petitioner's husband completed one year training period at B.T.T.I. and appeared at proficiency test on 06.09.2000 and further the late husband was temporarily posted in Mine "B" of Bhurkunda Colliery for the purpose of "ON JOB TRAINING". Late husband was directed to be paid their monthly stipend @ Rs.2500/per month till they remain there for the purpose of "ON JOB TRAINING". From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the husband of the petitioner was an employee under the respondent no.1 and working at Bhurkunda. It is further stated that husband of the petitioner was admitted at Gandhi Nagar Hospital, Ranchi on 09.06.2001 for his treatment and in course of treatment he died on 04.07.2001 leaving behind his wife (i.e. the present petitioner) son and mother. As the petitioner is a illiterate person, the matter was persuaded by the Union concerned within time. In the meeting dated 23.01.2003, it was resolved as Agenda No.46 for getting the name of dependent of late Dinesh Rajwar for ascertaining the real position. The Block Development Officer, Petarbar, Bokaro issued certificate of family members of petitioner dated 13.09.2001 certifying that petitioner is wife of late Dinesh Rajwar, who died on 04.07.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that she submitted several certificates (Annexure-10 series) to show that she is the genuine wife of late Dinesh Rajwar. It is further stated that vide Annexure-8 as Agenda No.46, the case of petitioner was ignored for appointment under Clause 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A. for want of detail information though sufficient information was given to the respondents. The petitioner approached this Court vide W.P.(S) No.3390 of 2007 which was disposed of in terms of the order dated 25.05.2009 observing therein: "Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, respondents are directed to take a decision in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner." In compliance of order of this Court, petitioner made several representations but no decision was taken by the respondent regarding her appointment. Even a Contempt Petition was filed by the petitioner bearing Cont. Case (Civil) No.696 of 2013. During the pendency of the Contempt Petition the respondent vide memo no. Dy.GM(M)/POBHA/ Estb./13/3874 dated 12.09.2013 rejected the claim of the petitioner intimating the petitioner that she cannot be given compassionate appointment as one Sri Kishan Rajwar has requested for employment and that the petitioner is not genuine wife of late Deinesh Rajwar and as such she cannot be given employment in lieu of the deceased employee. Hence, this writ petition.
(3.) Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent-C. C.L. has illegally and arbitrarily rejected the claim of the petitioner though she is fully entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under Clause 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A. Learned counsel further submits that other than the petitioner and her son who is aged about 15 years there is no other son of late Dinesh Rajwar and new story has been developed on frivolous complain to frustrate the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. She further argues that petitioner's son is minor and had never represented for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner has been turned down without adhering Annexure-8 and 10 which has ample proof to show that petitioner was the dependent wife of the deceased and without giving any opportunity of being heard, relying on frivolous complain, her claim has been turned down arbitrarily. Learned counsel further submits that rejection of the prayer of the petitioner after 13 long years on a frivolous and anonymous complain is not tenable in the eyes of law and without giving any opportunity of hearing, the respondents have turned down. The rejection of the claim of compassionate appointment is unjustified and also smacks malafied intention of respondents.;