Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Respondent Central Coalfields Limited.
(2.) Petitioner'S father died in harness on 19.12.1990 as a Category-II workman leaving behind his wife, 3 sons which include the petitioner and 2 daughters. As per the service excerpts at Annexure-1, petitioner was 12 years of age on 20.06.1987 and would have been 15 years and more at the time of death. On information supplied to the Employer as per the statements made at para 9, employees' name was struck off from the rolls on 20.12.1990. As per the statement made at para 10 no application was made by petitioner's relative or well-wishers. On the basis of verbal assurance that petitioner's case would be considered for compassionate appointment in terms of Clause 9.3.2 of the NCWA, petitioner and his family members were waiting till petitioner attains the age of majority. He was not kept in live roster. No option was either exercised for keeping him in live roster nor was monetary compensation claimed on the part of his mother. As per the statement made by the petitioner at para 13, he applied in the prescribed format in the year 1996 for compassionate appointment. However, such application made in the prescribed format in the year 1996 has also not been annexed. This has been rejected by the impugned order at Annexure-3 dated 11.08.2011 issued by the Deputy Manager(Personnel) Sarubera Colliery. Therefore he has approached this Court.
(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has mainly advanced the following submission:- (i) Petitioner ought to have been kept in live roster as he was 15 years of age at the time of death of the employee. It is obligatory on the part of the respondents to do so in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mahto Vrs. Central Coal Field Ltd. & others reported in, 2007 8 SCC 549. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1048 of 2011 dated 09.08.2011 (Annexure-5).(ii) Application for compassionate appointment was not barred by delay as there was no time limit prescribed under NCWA in vogue at the time of death of his father. The first circular prescribing time limit of 6 months came on 12.12.1995, which cannot be treated as retrospective in nature. Therefore, the application was not barred by delay.(iii) The statement of the petitioner made at para 13 that he had made application earlier is not specifically controverted in the counter affidavit by the Respondent and should be treated as admitted. Here, it is pertinent to mention here that no copy of such application has been enclosed to the writ petition.;