S. N. Pathak, J. - (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for appointment on compassionate ground and further prays for setting aside the letter, dated 17.05.2016 issued by the Dy. General Manager (Personnel) i.e respondent No. 4 rejected the claim of the petitioner on account of belated claim. Factual Matrix
(2.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that father of the petitioner, namely, Fullo Sah was basically a M/Loader and he was doing the job of a permanent nature at Simlong Colliery under S.P. Mines Area, ECL and he was availing all benefits of a permanent worker. As per instruction of the then Dy. CPM ( HQ), ECL, Hqs, Sanctoria, vide letter No. ECL/CMDC6B/ Empl/96/18 dated 04.01.1996 the Competent Authority has declared Fullo Sah as permanent employee of ECL. It is a case of the petitioner that in the year 1987 Fullo Sah was sent to Medical Board under Clause 9.4.3 NCWA IV and the Medical Board declared him permanent unfit on 27.02.1987. At the time of declaring unfit, the petitioner was minor and the father of petitioner was not declared permanent. When the petitioner become major, father of the petitioner has applied for compassionate employment for his son on the basis of medical board report. But, the case of the petitioner was not entertained by the respondent on the ground that the father of the petitioner was not a permanent employee although before taking such decision petitioner's father was declared permanent employee vide letter dated 04.01.1996 issued by Dy. Chief Personnel Manager (HQ), ECL. It is a case of the petitioner that he had been making continuous request to the Competent Authority for consideration of his case for employment on the ground of medical report of his father in which he declared unfit. Ultimately, without considering the direction of the Head Quarter, ECL vide letter dated 4.01.1996 vide letter dated 17.11.2005 Personnel Manager, EMPL has refused to consider his case for employment on the ground that he has filed application with a delay of 2 years of termination of service of the Ex-employee. It is a case of the petitioner that petitioner's father was a member of the Union. The Union took up the case and filed representation before the respondents for claiming compassionate appointment. The Union made a reference that similarly situated persons though had represented belatedly, have been considered by the Company but the case of the petitioner has been rejected illegally and arbitrarily. It has also been stated that though, the petitioner's father was a permanent employee declared vide letter dated 04.01.1996 but, the case was rejected erroneously on the wrong notion that father of the petitioner was not a permanent employee and also on the ground that there was no work of piece rated at Rajmahal area. It is a case of the petitioner that respondents have illegally and arbitrarily rejected his claim for compassionate appointment on the erroneous ground that he claimed belatedly for appointment and also on the ground that petitioner's father was not a permanent employee. Hence, the petitioner preferred the instant application.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the Union was able to demonstrate that several persons have been appointed even though they represented belatedly, but the case of the petitioner was not considered. Learned counsel submits that this is a case of discrimination and also of the fact that father of the petitioner was a permanent employee though erroneously the same has been turned out.;