- (1.) Heard Sri Ratnesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ananda Sen, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for an order quashing the letter dated 19.02.2002 (Annexure-8) issued by the Respondent No. 5 whereby the petitioner's prayer for his compassionate appointment under the terms of Clause 9.5.0 (II) and 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A. - V/VI was rejected on the ground of its being time barred.
(3.) The petitioner's case is that his father Late Arjun Mahto was employed in the Saunda Karnapura Colliery of the respondent C.C.L. He died on 16.08.1996. His mother had predeceased his father in the year 1994. The petitioner claims that at the time of his father's death, he was a minor of the age of 15 years, his name ought to have been kept on the live roster by the respondents for the purpose of providing him employment commensurate with his skill and qualification upon his attaining the age of 18 years as per the terms of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI. The respondent C.C.L. did not enter the petitioner's name in the live roster. The petitioner attained the age of majority on 24.01.2000 and thereafter he submitted his claim for employment before the concerned authorities of the respondent C.C.L. by filing his application in the prescribed format, on 06.04.2000. After about a year, he was called for an interview on 19.04.2001 but thereafter the respondents did not convey any information in respect of his claim for employment. He filed his representations one after the other, the last being in June, 2008 and in response, he was served with a copy of letter dated 19.02.2002 which is an inter-departmental communication, conveying that his claim for employment was rejected on the ground of limitation. Assailing the ground of limitation, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground of limitation cannot be made applicable to the petitioner since admittedly, on the date of his father's death, the petitioner was a minor and he could have submitted his claim for employment only alter gaining his age of majority. Learned Counsel explains further that the petitioner had gained his age of majority only on 24.01.2000 and within less than three months thereafter, he had submitted his application well within the period of limitation. Learned Counsel adds further that even otherwise, considering the fact that the petitioner was of the age of about 15 years on the date of death of his father, the respondent C.C.L., in terms of Clause 9.5.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI, ought to have entered the petitioner's name in the live roster for the purpose of offering him employment after he attains the age of majority. Learned Counsel would rely in this context upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mahto v. C.C.L., 2007 4 JLJR 144. Learned Counsel adds further that since the petitioner could know about the rejection of his claim for employment only in the month of June, 2008, he has preferred an appeal against the order before the concerned authorities of the respondents in August, 2008 but the same is still pending and has not been disposed of.;