- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs: (i) For quashing the order dated 1/ 6.8.2002 issued by respondent No.4 by which the said respondent has communicated the decision of rejection of the prayer of appointment of petitioner's son Upendra Bhuiya on compassionate ground. (ii) For commanding the respondents to reconsider the matter of appointment of the petitioner's son on compassionate ground in view of the clear provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement which has got a force of law and applicable so far the respondents are concerned. (iii) For commanding the respondents to calculate and pay the monetary compassion to the petitioner in view of the provisions of N.C.WA
(2.) THE facts, in brief, as stated by the petitioner is set out as under: - The petitioner's husband died -in - harness on 26.4.1994 and after his death the petitioner approached the respondents requesting for compassionate appointment of her son Upendra Bhuiya who was a minor at that time. The respondents vide their letter dated 28.8.2000 asked the petitioner's son to submit the details with regard to late submission of his application. The petitioner vide its reply dated 7.9.2000 clarified the position stating that he had applied earlier and had informed vide his another letter dated 29.7.2004 that her son was minor and also enclosed the same alongwith the letter. One another query subsequently raised as to why the eldest son Yogendra Bhuiya whose name was mentioned in the file was not the claimant for compassionate appointment. The petitioner gave a reply indicating that Yogendra Bhuiya had died in the year 1997 itself and the second son being a minor all the documents were also filed for the same. Thereafter the respondents vide its impugned letter dated 1.8.2002 regretted (sic -rejected ?) the claim of compassionate appointment on the ground that it was at a belated case of 1994. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the very ground of belated application is incorrect since the petitioner had intimated everything in the year 1994 itself and also informed that her second son was minor. It is also submitted in the subsequent other letters, two queries were raised, which were duly answered and the first query was as to why the eldest son whose name was in the file has not been named as claimant. The second query was in case of minor file proof of it.
(3.) THE respondents in their contention have submitted that the application was highly belated and was made in the year 2000.;