- (1.) HEARD the parties and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.
(2.) THE case of the writ petitioner is that his mother namely Gangia Devi was an employee of C.C.L. -respondent No.1 and . she died on 19.1.1998. After her death, the grandfather of the petitioner i.e. the father -in -law of Late Gangia Devi made an application to the C.C.L. on 30th December, 1999, for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground under 9.3.0 of N.C.W.A. -VII but since he was a minor at that time was directed to apply for such appointment after he becomes major. Again, the petitioner made an application to the Project Officer for his appointment on compassionate ground after attaining the age of majority, which was received in the office of the Project Officer, Sounda 'D' Colliery on 23.4.2002, which has been rejected by the respondents and communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure -7 dated 20.4.2004 on two grounds firstly that the application for appointment on compassionate ground was made after a lapse of about four years from the death of ex -employee i.e. the period of limitation prescribed under the circular issued by the C.C.L. for the said purpose and secondly that at the time of death of the ex -employee, the petitioner was not eligible to be considered for keeping his name on life roster. So far as the first ground of rejection of the prayer of the petitioner is concerned, the Satya same can't be sustained in view of the judgment of this Court by a Division Bench in the case of Narayan Chaudhary vs. Central Coalfields Limited and Others, reported in 2007(3) J.L.J.R. page 692 wherein it has been held the circular prescribing the period of limitation which was in force at the time of consideration of the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground has to be taken into consideration and not the circular which was in force on the date of making application. So far as the second ground for rejection of the prayer of the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as per N.C.W.A. -V, the age prescribed therein for keeping the name of the dependent of a deceased employee was 15 years, whereas the petitioner, was below 12 years of age at that time and, therefore. he was not entitled to be kept on life roster as per scheme of N.C.W.A. -V. There is no dispute of the fact that on the date of consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, N.C.W.A. -VI was into force, which prescribed the age of the dependent of a deceased employee to be 12 years for keeping the name of dependent on life roster.
(3.) SINCE in the impugned order, the authorities concerned has not assigned any reason as to why the petitioner was not found fit to be considered for keeping his name on life roster and, therefore, in my view the impugned order is unsustainable. In my view the case of the petitioner requires to be reconsidered afresh by the authorities concerned.;