DHIRAN RAWANI Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner-appellant has preferred this appeal assailing the decision dated 31.07.2018 of the learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in W.P. (S) No. 346 of 2018 by which the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant seeking direction to the respondents-Bharat Coking Coal Limited to consider the case of the appellant for appointment on compassionate basis on account of death of his father who died in harness, has been dismissed.

(2.) The case of the writ petitioner-appellant is that his father was working as P.R. Trammer at East Katras Colliery, Katras, Area No. 4 of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited who died in harness on 14.06.2003. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner submitted an application for her appointment on compassionate ground. However, her claim was rejected on 15.01.2004. Thereafter, an application for keeping the petitioner on live roster was submitted through the Employees' Union on 30.07.2004. The learned Single Judge has noticed that the respondents-authorities have admitted that such application was received by them.

(3.) Let it be noted that the petitioner's date of birth being 04.07.1990, at the time of death of his father, he was aged about 13 years. He claimed that on attaining the age 18 years in the year 2008, he submitted representation for his compassionate appointment, however, when the respondents did not respond to the representation, he was compelled to approach this Court by filing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, finding that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the writ petitioner-appellant in approaching this Court, i.e., about 10 years after having attained the required age, held that the writ petition suffered from the vice of delay and laches and also that mother of the writ petitioner was being granted monetary compensation. The learned Single Judge has concluded his decision by saying that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide helping hand to the family in distress but it cannot be claimed as a matter of right and, since the family has sustained the crisis over a period of 15 years, now a direction for appointment on compassionate appointment is not required to be given. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.