Premlata Singh vs Coal India Limited & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7700 Cal

   65.
21.11.2022
   S.D.

                                   W.P.A. 18401 of 2022

                                     Premlata Singh
                                           Vs.
                                Coal India Limited & Ors.



                   Mr. Gobinda Kar
                                                     ..For the Petitioner

                   Mr. Manik Das
                                       ...For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 9.

The rejection of the petitioner's claim for compassionate

appointment was made on the following grounds:-

"1) The concerned employee died on 12.04.2007. But application for employment was preferred on 23.04.2013 which is after six years from the death of the employee.

2) Date of Birth of the candidate comes to 12.08.1990 as per IME report. Claimant was minor and her age was 16 years 8 months on the date of death of ex, Employee.

3) As per Hindu Marriage Act, the minimum age of marriage for a girl child is 18 years. The EPIC and Aadhar Card shows the date of birth of claimant is 1993".

The said rejection was made by the Chief Manager

(M)/Agent, Satgram Colliery on September 6, 2017.

The case of the petitioner is that her husband who was

an employee of the Eastern Coalfileds Limited (in short,

"ECL") died-in-harness on May 20, 2007. After the death of

her husband, the petitioner made an application for

compassionate appointment on January 1, 2008. She again

renewed her prayer on September 15, 2009. Upon

examination of the claim of the petitioner, the Chief Manager

rejected the same since her age as per the Initial Medical

Examination (IME) report was assessed at 16 years 8 months

as on the date of death of ex-employee. Therefore, the

employer/ECL came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a

minor and her marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage

Act. Furthermore, the employer/ECL observed that the

application for compassionate appointment was made on

April 23, 2013, which was 6 years after the death of the

employee. Such belated application cannot be considered

being contrary to the factors to be considered for the purpose

of consideration of compassionate appointment.

Mr. Kar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that the first application for compassionate

appointment was made way back in 2008 and, therefore, the

ground with regard to a belated application being made does

not and cannot arise. He further submits that the date of birth

of the petitioner would appear from page 26 of the writ

petition which is a certificate issued by the Board of High

School, intermediate education issued by Madhyamik Siksha

Parishad, Uttar Pradesh. The mistake that appeared in the

Voter Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of

India as also the Aadhar Card belonging to the petitioner have

already been rectified. Such documents have also been

submitted with the respondent authorities.

Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

employer/ECL submits that the purported application made in

2008/2009 was not applied through proper channel. Backdoor

entries were made by the petitioner with the help of some

unscrupulous employees. The said issue has been agitated in

the report on affidavit filed by his client.

Furthermore, he submits that the application for

compassionate appointment cannot be considered relying a

judgment reported in 2006 (5) Supreme 566 delivered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of J.K. & Ors. Vs. Sajad

Ahmed Mir. He submits that delay, latches and acquiescence

negates any relief for compassionate appointment. He

submits that the documents submitted by the petitioner in

support of her age being 18 years as in 2004 are also

fabricated/forged. Therefore, the employer/ECL correctly

rejected her prayer for compassionate appointment.

Having considered the rival submissions of the parties

and the materials placed on record, this Court finds that the

petitioner has relied on an application dated 2008 and 2009 to

show that she has approached the employer shortly upon the

death of her husband. This Court does not find any steps

taken by the respondent/ECL against the employees who they

now allege to be unscrupulous, on affidavit. Furthermore, in

Sajad Ahmed Mir (supra), the prayer for compassionate

appointment was rejected considering the fact that the

applicant's father died in 1987 and the prayer for

compassionate appointment was made in September 1991

after 4 and ½ years of such death. Thereafter, the writ petition

was filed in June 19, 1999 for enforcing such right. This Court

cannot accept the contentions of Mr. Das with regard to the

writ petition not being maintainable on the grounds of

delay/latches and/or acquiescence. No document has been

shown to corroborate the fact that steps were taken against the

unscrupulous employees who purportedly accepted the

backdated applications. Even in the rejection letter there is no

mention of the fact that applications were made through

backdoor and therefore not considered.

This Court directs the Superintendent, Burdwan

Medical College to constitute a Board to assess the age of the

petitioner by way of an ossification test.

Let such Board be constituted within 6 weeks from date

and the report of the ossification test be communicated with

sealed cover to the Registrar General, Appellate Side within 8

weeks from date of this order. Let the said Report be placed

before this Court on the next date of hearing.

Registry to communicate such order to the

Superintendent, Burdwan Medical Colleges.

Let the matter come up for further consideration on

January 17, 2023 under the same heading "Motion".

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order

duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Lapita Banerji, J.)