- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the Management of the Central Coalfields Ltd. against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 4.2.2009 in W.P.(S) No. 2014/2003* by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent herein although was allowed, the relief of compassionate appointment was not granted to the petitioner as the matter was merely remitted to the concerned authority i.e. the appellant herein for passing a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.
(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant submitted that the appellant -Management had already passed an order denying the appointment to the petitioner/respondent herein and, therefore, a fresh order remitting the matter to the management of the appellant -C.C.L. was not required and hence, even if the writ petition was allowed only to the extent of remitting the matter, this Court should not permit repeated consideration by the management in regard to the claim of the petitioner/ respondent herein. Counsel for the appellant -Management although may be justified to the extent that the matter repeatedly may not be sent to the Management for consideration of the claim of compassionate appointment but in the instant matter, the decision taken by the appellant -Management was found to be arbitrary and illegal as the learned Single Judge had been pleased to hold that the matter in regard to compassionate appointment could not have been decided by exercising discretion but it had to be decided as per the scheme formulated by the Management of CCL.
(3.) THUS , the learned Single Judge found a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner/respondent herein that his case for appointment was not as per the scheme formulated by the CCL. and, therefore, the learned Single Judge perhaps could have even granted the relief to the petitioner/respondent herein by issuing a mandatory direction to grant appointment to the petitioner/respondent herein. But, the learned Single Judge granted opportunity to the appellant -Management of C.C.L. to reconsider the matter and examine whether the case of the petitioner/respondent herein in fact is contrary to the scheme or not. Hence, liberty has been left to the appellant -Management to scrutinize the matter and come to a final conclusion thereafter.;