Mahesh Munda vs Central Coalfields Limited And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2721 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                 W.P.(S) No. 6111 of 2018

                Mahesh Munda                                  ...     ...      Petitioner
                                         Versus
                Central Coalfields Limited and Ors.
                                                       ...        ...        Respondents
                                           ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate

---

09/18.07.2022 Learned counsels for the parties are present.

2. Learned counsels for the parties have filed their respective paper book of judgments, which they are relying upon.

3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that there is conflicting view of this Court with regard to applicability of Circular dated 07.07.1992 for the purposes of assessment of age of a person who is seeking compassionate appointment. They submit that in L.P.A. No.687 of 2019, it has been held that the said Circular does not apply as the person seeking employment does not come within the meaning of employee. However, the said Circular has been relied upon by this Court in L.P.A. No.429 of 2017. It is submitted that L.P.A. No.429 of 2017 was decided on 14.03.2019 but was not placed before Hon'ble Division Bench while deciding the LPA. No.687 of 2019. It is also submitted that one case of Chandradeo Singh Vs. CCL being W.P.(S). No.6879 of 2017 has been decided in favour of the petitioner but the same is subject matter of L.P.A. No.372 of 2021. The appeal has been dismissed but the petitioner has not been able to get a copy of the same.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon one judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No.6037 of 2002 decided on 21.03.2003 wherein, the medical board had assessed the age of the petitioner between 60 years to 65 years and a direction was issued to treat the age of the petitioner as 60 years. Learned counsel submits that in the said judgment dated 21.03.2003, this Court had relied upon another judgment in the case of Raghuraj Singh Vs. Central Coalfields Limited being C.W.J.C. No.896 of 1998 and the judgment is dated 16.12.1998. However, he has fairly submitted that he does not have a copy of the said judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the parties have also argued their case on merit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the age of the applicant at the time of death of the employee is to be considered for the purposes of grant of compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that so far as the consideration of compassionate appointment is concerned, the relevant date is the date of death as decided by the Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of C.C.L Vs. Phulmati Devi in L.P.A. No.307 of 2018 decided on 07.01.2020.

6. This Court also finds that different views have been taken by the different benches of this Court from time to time in the matter of medical examination for age determination for the purposes of grant of compassionate appointment by the respondent company.

7. Heard in part.

8. Post this case on 5th September, 2022 under the heading for 'Orders'.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav