- (1.) HEARD Ms. Ratna Prabha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned counsel for the Respondent -C.C.L.
(2.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the letter dated 29.10.2003 (Annexure -5), by which the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment on the ground of the service of his father, who died in harness during his service under the C.C.L.,is rejected. Such claim of the petitioner was made on the basis of the memorandum of understanding recorded in Clause 9.3.2 of the N.C.W.A. which, according to the petitioner is binding upon the employer -C.C. L. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner happens to be the eldest son of his parents. His father, late Baldeo Yadav was employed under the C.C.L. and died in harness on 03.07.2000. The widow of the deceased -employee filed an application before the concerned authorities of the Respondents in the month of November, 2000 seeking compassionate appointment for her eldest son, namely, the present petitioner. The claim for compassionate appointment is said to have been considered by the Respondent -C.C.L. but was rejected on the ground that the name of the petitioner as being the eldest son of the deceased -employee did not appear either in any of the service records or in the employment register pertaining to the deceased -employee.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner explains that the stand taken by the Respondents is totally incorrect and misleading. Referring to Annexure -1 of the writ application, which is claimed to be a copy of the excerpt of the service record of the deceasedemployee, learned counsel submits that the petitioner's name has categorically been mentioned therein, and therefore, the Respondent cannot deny the fact that the petitioner was declared by the deceased -employee to be his son. Learned counsel adds further that the Respondent Company had further sought a Report from the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district, namely, Jamui to enquire regarding the genuineness of the petitioner's identity. Upon such enquiry, the petitioner's identity vis -a -vis his parentage and address has been found to be correct.;