- (1.) THE petitioner in this application has prayed for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for his appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of demise of his father.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner explains that the father of the petitioner was an employee under the respondents and after his death on 24.1.1998, the petitioner filed an application for his compassionate appointment which was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the application was filed beyond the period of limitation of six months and therefore the application was not entertain able. Learned counsel explains that according to the earlier Circular of the employer. the period of limitation for filing application for appointment on compassionate ground was six months and the petitioner's application was filed three months after the prescribed period of limitation. However, subsequently by a Circular issued by the respondents, the period of limitation was extended to one year and such benefit of extension of the period of limitation was also available to the petitioner. but without considering this aspect, the petitioner's representation has been rejected under the mistaken impression that the application filed was beyond the period of limitation. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein it is admitted that the father of the petitioner died on 24.1.1998 and the petitioner being the dependent of the deceased was, under rules of the respondents, entitled to file application for compassionate appointment but such claim was made beyond six months after the death of the deceased and since it was beyond the period of six months, the petitioner's claim was rightly rejected. Learned counsel for the respondents acknowledges that the period of limitation was subsequently enhanced to one year and the benefit therefore was applicable to the case of the petitioner but it appears that due to lack of proper information in this regard, the petitioner's claim was rejected by the officer concerned on behalf of the respondent -company.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner informs that a similar case came up for consideration before this Court in the case d Roopna Manjhi vs. CCL and Others, reported in 2003(1) JCR 324 and subsequently in the case of Muneshwar Ganjhu in WP(S) No. 4006 of 2003 which was disposed of on 21.8.2003 with the observation that since in the aforesaid case, the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment within period of 1 1/2 Y2 years from the date of death of the deceased employee, the respondent management was competent to consider the application in. proper perspective.;