- (1.) HEARD Shri Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and JC to Shri Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) PETITIONER in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to grant employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds in terms of Clause 9.3.2 of the N.C.W. Agreement -V in view of the fact that the petitioner's father, who was permanent employee under the CCL, had died in harness on 11.7.2007. A further prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondents to forthwith release the death -cum -retiral benefits along with statutory interest to the petitioner which was payable in the account of his deceased father. Learned counsel for the petitioner would explain that on the date of death of his father, the petitioner was minor and after attaining the age of majority, he had filed his application on 21.08.2007 before the concerned authorities of the respondents namely, the Project Officer, Rajrappa for appointment on compassionate ground. Instead of accepting the petitioner's request, the respondent Personnel Manager of the CCL had refused to issue the prescribed application form for compassionate appointment to the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner's mother Smt. Phoolmani Devi had also applied for her compassionate appointment against the service of her deceased husband. Learned counsel adds that the respondents have neither considered the claim of the petitioner's mother, nor the petitioner's claim for grant of employment on compassionate ground and this is in violation of the terms of understanding as contained in Clause -9.3.2 of the N.C.W. Agreement -V. Learned counsel adds further that even otherwise, the fact that the petitioner was the minor son of the deceased employee, was within the knowledge of the respondent authorities which was available from the service records of the deceased employee and according to the terms of the N.C.W. Agreement -V, the petitioner's name ought to have been kept on live roaster for grant of employment on attaining his age of majority. Learned counsel adds further that though, the petitioner's mother had also initially prayed for grant of employment against the services of her deceased husband, but she had later by written communication, withdrawn her claim in support of the petitioner and had also filed an affidavit in affirmation of the aforesaid fact, but the respondent authorities has not considered the petitioner's claim as yet.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent CCL submits that apparently, on account of rival claims made by the petitioner and his mother for employment, the matter could not be finalized since the dispute had to be settled between the petitioner and his mother.;