- (1.) HEARD Mr. Rahul Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned counsel for the Respondent.
(2.) FROM the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the admitted facts of this case are: '' That the husband of the petitioner no. 1 was an employee under the Respondent -C.C.L. He died in harness on 7.4.2000. After four months from the date of death of the deceased -employee, the petitioner no. 1 being the widow filed an application before the concerned authorities of the Respond -ent -C.C.L., praying for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds to her son (petitioners no. 2), under the terms and conditions of the N.C.W.A. Agreement. In response, the Respondent -C.C.L. had issued a letter dated 3.9.2000, stating that since the petitioner's son for whom, the claim has been made, is a minor, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner no. 1 for grant of compassionate appointment to her son (petitioner no. 2) was rejected. The petitioner no. 1 thereafter filed second application on 12.7.2002, reiterating her earlier prayer for grant of compassionate appointment to her son, on the ground that her son by that date, has attained the age of majority. Instead of taking any prompt decision, the Respondents kept the matter pending and ultimately, by the impugned order dated 6.8.2004 (Annexure -8), communicated their decision rejecting the petitioner's prayer for grant of compassionate appointment to her son. The only grounds stated therein, for rejection of the player was that the name of the son, namely, the petitioner no. 2, did not appear in the service records of the deceased -employee. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order, inter alia, on the following grounds: '' (i) The ground on which the prayer for compassionate appointment has been rejected is totally false, misleading and misconceived. The service records of the deceased -employee do reflect the name of the petitioner no. 2. Mr. Gupta, while elaborating this ground would explain that the petitioner has specifically stated in the writ application that in the service records, the name of the petitioner no. 2 as declared by the Equivalent Citation:2009 -JX(Jhar) -0 -1154 deceased -employee himself, does find a mention. Referring to Annexure -1 which is purportedly the excerpt of the service -records of the deceased employee, learned counsel explains that the same contains the declaration given by the deceased -employee way back on 25.4.1997, on being called upon by the employer by a general Circular issued to all the employee to fill -up the relevant columns including the columns pertaining to the names of the members of the family of the employees. Annexure -1, according to the learned counsel, does contain the name of the petitioner no. 2, namely, Sarfaraz Akhtar, aged four years on the date of declaration i.e. April. 1997. Learned counsel adds that the aforesaid declaration confirms not only the fact that the petitioner No. 2 is the son of the deceased -employee but also the fact that in April, 1997, he was four years of age and had attained his age of majority in 2001. (ii) That even otherwise, in none of the earlier correspondences, did the Respondent -C.C.L ever take any such ground and on the contrary, the ground for rejecting the petitioner's prayer, as per the earlier communication dated 29.9.2000, was that the petitioner No. 2 was yet a minor on the date of application. Learned counsel adds further, that on earlier occasion, upon considering these aspects of the controversy raised, this Court vide order dated 25.1.2006, had directed the Respondent -C.C.L. to annex the copy of the service book of the deceased -employee alongwith the original there of with their counter affidavit. Learned counsel submits that though counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondents but neither the original nor the copy of the service book of the deceased -employee has been produced by the Respondents.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Respondent -C.C.L. would submit on the other hand, that the Respondents have rightly rejected the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment, basically in view of the fact that the service records of the deceased -employee, does not mention the name of the petitioner No. 2, as being the son of the deceased -employee. Learned counsel explains further that the declarations made by the deceased -employee during his lifetime in the Gratuity Nomination Form, LTC/ LLTC Option Form, and C.M.P.F. do not reflect the name of the petitioner No. 2 and under such circumstances, the Respondents authorities have rightly arrived at the conclusion that there is nothing to substantiate the claim of the petitioner No. 2 that he is the son of the deceased -employee.;