- (1.) HEARD Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kaushal Agarwal, J.C. to Mr. Ananda Sen for respondent Central Coalfields Limited.
(2.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the Order as contained in Annexure -8 dated 11.10.1999 issued under the signature of the Personnel Manager (I.R.), Barkakana, Central Coalfields Limited informing the petitioner that his claim for appointment on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father in terms of Clause 9:3:2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement V/VI has been rejected on the ground that his name does not appear in the Service Sheet excerpts of the Ex -employee Late Mahabir Mistry. The case of the petitioner is that he is son of the ex - employee Late Mahabir Mistry who was employed at Saunda - D Colliery and who died in harness on 08.12.1997. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for his appointment on compassionate ground under Clause 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A. - V/VI by making an application in due format in the month of February, 1998, which was duly forwarded on 13.03.1999 to Head Quarter. It is also stated by the petitioner that death -cum -retiral benefits of Late Mahabir Mistry was also paid by the respondent Company. There appears to be some dispute with regard to the fact as to whether the petitioner is the son/ dependent of the exemployee of C.C.L. or not? As it appears that there was some confusion in the minds of the respondents about the actual name of the petitioner. According to the petitioner he is the eldest son of Exemployee Late Mahabir Mistry and that his name is Lal Bahadur Shastry Rana whereas his nick name is Shastry Mistry and he is known by his both names. In order to sort out the dispute, an enquiry was made in that regard by the Project Officer, Barkakana and the enquiry report was forwarded to the Personnel Manager (IR), Barkakana stating therein that Lal Bahadur Shastry Rana and Shastry Mistry is the same person who is the son of Late Mahabir Mistry. In view of this enquiry report, the confusion, if any, in the name of the petitioner stood clarified. But as it appears that the Personnel Manager, by his impugned order, without considering the said enquiry report submitted by the Project Officer, has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the name of the petitioner did not appear in the service sheet excerpts of the ex -employee.
(3.) THERE is no dispute of the fact that in the service excerpts of the ex -employee, the name of Shastry Mistri finds place. According to the petitioner as well as, as per the enquiry report, he is the same person and he is known as Shastry Mistri. This Order of the Personnel Manager, Barkakana appears to be not based on the record. When an Officer like the Project Officer of C.C.L. has reported after enquiry that Lal Bahadur Shastry Rana and Shastry Mistry is the same person i.e. son of ex -employee Late Mahabir Mistry then there was no occasion for the Personnel Manager to reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the name of the petitioner was not found in the service excerpts. In my view such rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the concerned respondent is illegal and it cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the order dated 12.10.1999 as contained in Annexure -8, passed by the Personnel Manager (I/R), Barkakana is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to appoint the petitioner suitably under the relevant provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement within a period of two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.;