- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner as expressed in this writ application is that though he is entitled for the grant of compassionate appointment on the basis of his mother's service who had died -in -harness while under the employment of the respondent C.C.L. on 23.8.2003. the respondent employer has refused to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner only on the ground that petitioner's brother -in -law has already been provided employment in the C.C. L. against the services of the petitioner's father some time in the year 1991. Learned counsel for the petitioner would challenge the stand taken by the respondents on the ground that it is totally misconceived and misleading and contrary to the benefits secured to the employees of the C.C.L. under the provisions of the N.C.W.A. Referring in this context to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohan Mahto's case 2007(4) JLJR 144 S.C., learned counsel submits that it has been settled in Mohan Mahto's case that the provisions of the N. C.W.A. would be the guiding factor as far as the service conditions of the employees of the C.C.L. The N.C.W. Agreement vide Clause 9.3.2. declares that the dependents of the deceased employee would be entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. Such declaration has not been made with any rider or condition that grant of compassionate appointment would be made only if no other member of the family of the deceased is already employed under the respondent company. Furthermore, the respondent company has also issued a circular on 16.4.2008 (Annexure -6 to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit of the respondents) whereby a decision has been taken that the employer would consider the claim for compassionate appointment also in cases in which a member of the same family has already been appointed. Learned counsel argues further that even considering the fact that an employment has been given to the brother -in -law of the petitioner, but the same cannot be taken as a ground for refusing the petitioner's prayer as because it cannot be said that the brother -in -law happens to be the member of the family of the deceased and that he was dependent upon the earnings of the deceased employee.
(3.) PER contra, the stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner's brother - in -law was given employment on the basis of the concession made by the petitioner's father who, while opting for voluntary retirement, had nominated his son -in -law namely the petitioner's brother - in -law for employment in service as his dependent.;