Gyan Sudha Misra, C.J. and D.K. Sinha, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 17-1-2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. (S) No. 3369 of 2003, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant was dismissed and thus his claim for appointment on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father was rejected.
(2.) The admitted facts under which the writ petition was filed by the petitioner-appellant indicates that the father of the petitioner-appellant Degan Mahto died in harness on 13-8-2000 leaving behind his widow and two sons, who were both major. The respondent-Central Coalfields,Ltd. offered an appointment to the elder son of the deceased, namely, Kauleshwar Mahto but he refused to accept the appointment after which the second son of the deceased employee Dularchand Prasad Mahto i.e. the appellant herein claimed appointment in place of his late father as his elder brother had refused the offer of appointment. The respondent-Company rejected his request, indicating that the name of the younger son Dularchand Prasad Mahto i.e. the appellant herein does not appear in the service record of the Company and, therefore, his case was rejected. It is, in this context that the petitioner-appellant filed a writ petition before the learned single Judge. However, the learned single Judge was pleased to reject the writ petition on the ground of absence of the petitioner-appellant's name in the service record as also on account of the fact that the family had survived for more than seven years without any job on compassionate ground and for this purpose the learned single Judge had relied upon the ratio of the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors., reported in (1994) SCC 138 , wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that consideration for employment on compassionate ground is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be claimed and offered after a long lapse of time and after the crisis in the family is over. This was also the reason relied upon by the learned single Judge denying appointment to the second son i.e. the appellant and hence the writ petition was dismissed.
(3.) Thereafter the petitioner-appellant preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge, wherein it was submitted that the learned single Judge was factually incorrect in accepting the contention of the respondent-Company that the name of the younger son was not recorded in the service record as there are documents in support of the fact that the name of the younger son i.e. the petitioner-appellant herein was, in fact, mentioned.;