- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reasons that the respondents are not giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner only on the ground that within eighteen months from the date of death of the father of the present petitioner, the application was not preferred by the present petitioner, otherwise no disqualification has been attached to the present petitioner.
(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in fact, there is no voluntary delay on the part of the present petitioner. By the act of law, he was restrained from applying for compassionate appointment. He was wrongly arrested on 30th June, 2004 on the basis of a false case, instituted against the present petitioner, which resulted into honourable acquittal on merits vide order dated 14th August, 2006. The said order is Annexure -2 to the memo of the present petition. Thus, for this unforeseen and uncontrolled reasons, which were not in the hands of the petitioner, he could not apply within eighteen months. Nonetheless, there is an application, preferred by the present petitioner dated 7th November, 2006. Thus, in fact, there is no delay, looking to the order at Annexure -2 to the memo of the present petition, releasing the present petitioner from confinement vide order dated 14th August, 2006. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the respondents and, therefore, the case may be remanded to the concerned respondent authorities to take a fresh decision on its own merits without considering the ground of delay in preferring the application. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Clause 9.3.0 of National Coal Wages Agreement, there is a provision for compassionate appointment of the legal heir of the deceased employee, if the employee has expired in harness. Father of the petitioner has expired while he was in service of respondent no. 1 on 6th June, 2004. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, who has mainly submitted that only on the ground of delay in preferring the application for getting compassionate appointment, the case of the present petitioner has been discarded. In fact, an application ought to have been preferred within eighteen months from the date of death of an employee whereas in the facts of the present case, approximately after twenty eight months the application has been preferred by the present petitioner. Thus, because of the delay of ten months, the case of the petitioner has not been considered.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: (i)Father of the present petitioner, who was working with the respondents, expired on 6th June, 2004. (ii)The petitioner was implicated in a false case and was taken into custody on 30th June, 2004. The charges levelled against the present petitioner were not proved and honourable acquittal has been given vide order dated 14th October, 2006. The said order is Annexure -2 to the memo of the present petition. (iii)Thus, immediately after the death of his father, wife of the present petitioner has expired on 28th June, 2004 and the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges vide order dated 14th August, 2006 and no sooner he was acquitted, an application was preferred by him i.e. on 27th November, 2006. Thus, for the reasons and circumstances beyond the control of the present petitioner, there is some delay in preferring the application, which is not attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be said to be lethargic in preferring the application nor there is any negligence on the part of the present petitioner. (iv)Whenever any benevolent scheme has to be interpreted or to be applied, it ought to be kept in mind of the concerned authority that it must be interpreted liberally, especially looking to Clause 9.3.0. of the National Coal Wage Agreement. There is no other defect attached to the present petitioner, even as per the respondents. ;