Jharkhand High Court
Pintu Hazam vs M/S Central Coalfields Limited ... on 22 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.S. No. 2321 of 2020
----
Pintu Hazam, S/o late Lakhan Hazam, Ex-Mazdoor, Cat-I, Kabribad Mine, R/o
village-Khutwadhab, P.O. P.S. Matrukha, District-Giridih.
......Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Central Coalfields Limited through the Chairman cum Managing
Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi.
2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House,
Ranchi.
3. The General Manager, Giridih Area, Central Coalfields Limited, Beniadih,
District-Giridih.
4. The Staff Officer(P&A), Central Coalfields Limited, Beniadih, P.O. P.S.
Beniadih, District-Giridih.
5. The Project Officer, Giridih Project, Central Coalfields Limited, Beniadih,
P.O. P.S. Beniadih, District-Giridih.
6. The Personnel officer, Beniadih, Central Coalfields Limited, Beniadih, P.O.
P.S. Beniadih, District-Giridih. ......Respondents
----
Coram: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate
For the C.C.L. : Mr. Aditya Raman, Advocate
--------
06/22.8.2023 Heard the parties.
2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the
letter no. GM(G)/PD/9.3.0./2020/2177 dated 9.3.2020 issued under the
signature of respondent no. 4, by which the claim of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment has been rejected. The petitioner has further
prayed for a direction upon the respondents to provide compassionate
appointment in terms of para 9.3.0 of N.C.W.A.-VI.
3. It has been submitted by Mr. Yogendra Prasad, learned counsel for the
petitioner, that the father of the petitioner namely Lakhan Hazam died in harness
which resulted in the petitioner submitting an application for compassionate
appointment but subsequently after the death of his father-Lakhan Hazam, a
complaint was received from his uncle in which he has claimed himself to be
Lakhan Hazam and also claimed that the father of the petitioner was Arjun
Hazam who had impersonated Lakhan Hazam. Learned counsel submits that
during the entire service period of 26 years no complaint was made against the
father of the petitioner and only after the death in order to prevent the petitioner
from being appointed on compassionate ground, such complaint was made.
Learned counsel submits that subsequently the said Lakhan Hazam had also
submitted an application that he does not have any objection if the petitioner is
granted compassionate appointment.
4. Mr. Aditya Raman, learned counsel appearing for M/s Central
Coalfields Limited, has relied on the counter affidavit while submitting that on the
complaint received from Lakhan Hazam, an enquiry was conducted and the
enquiry report clearly came to a finding that the father of the petitioner had infact
impersonated Lakhan Hazam and had continued to work in the company for 26
years. Learned counsel submits that when there has been a clear cut case of
impersonation there is no question of the petitioner being provided with
compassionate appointment more so when the petitioner is the son of the
impersonator.
5. It has been averred in the writ application that Lakhan Hazam was
appointed on 13.3.1968 in Kabribad Mines of Central Coalfields Limited and he
died in harness on 4.1.2016. In terms of para 9.3.0. of N.C.W.A. -VI, the
petitioner claiming himself to be the dependent of the deceased had submitted
an application for grant of compassionate appointment. Necessary documents
in support of such contention were also filed by the petitioner. However, a
complaint was made by one Lakhan Hazam claiming himself to be the brother
of the deceased by further claiming that the deceased is named Arjun Hazam
and he had impersonated Lakhan Hazam by working in M/s Central Coalfields
Limited for 26 years. Based on the said complaint, an enquiry was conducted
and consequent thereto, the impugned letter dated 9.3.2020 was issued by the
respondent no. 4 by which the claim of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment had been rejected. The counter affidavit which has been filed by
the respondent M/s Central Coalfields Limited includes the enquiry report from
which it appears that it was Arjun Hazam who was impersonating Lakhan Hazam
and had continued to work in M/s Central Coalfields Limited till his death during
the service period. Though, it is a fact that the original Lakhan Hazam did not
make any complaint during the service period of the father of the petitioner and
though after making such complaint he had resiled from such statement and has
stated about not having any objection to the petitioner being granted
compassionate appointment but once such complaint has been made and since
M/s Central Coalfields Limited came to know about the purported impersonation,
the enquiry which was conducted was rightly done so and the enquiry report
which is based on the statements of the witnesses as well as on consideration
of various documents came to a conclusion that the father of the petitioner is
Arjun Hazam and not Lakhan Hazam.
6. In course of submission, Mr. Yogendra Prasad, learned counsel for the
petitioner, has referred to an order passed by this Court in the case of Manoj
Prasad Vs. M/s Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi and others reported in
(2016) SCC Online Jhar 375 while stating that the case of the present petitioner
is squarely covered by the judgment under reference.
7. In the case of Manoj Kumar (Supra), the factual aspects reveal that a
departmental proceeding was initiated against the concerned employee and
during the pendency of the said departmental proceeding, the said employee
died and therefore it could not be proved as to whether he was the impersonator
or not. The court had come to a conclusion in the following manner:-
"13 So far the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in R Vishwanatha
Pillai v. State of Kerala (Supra), it is stated that the same is not applicable in the
facts of this case, because in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that safeguard of affording an opportunity to defend as provided in Article 311
stood complied with. Instead of departmental inquiry, the inquiry was conducted
by the Scrutiny Committee consisting of three officers, who were better equipped
to examine the question regarding the validity or otherwise of the caste
certificate. Due opportunity was given to the appellant to put forth his point of
view and defend himself. In the instant case, on the basis of report of the officer
who conducted preliminary inquiry, a fresh departmental proceeding initiated.
Under the said circumstance, in that departmental proceeding all the evidences
are required to be adduced again and the delinquent employee (petitioner's
father) ought to have been given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
14. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned letter dated
26.03.2014 (Annexure-6) issued by General Manager (Min)/Project Officer
SDQ-1(Kalyni Project), Central Coalfields Ltd. cannot be sustained.
15. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order dated
26.03.2014 (Annexure-6) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to
consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.
Respondents are further directed to pay the terminal dues admissible to
Late Shailendra Kumar, Ex-employee of Central Coalfields Ltd, to his
dependents in accordance with law".
8. As has been noted in the present case, on complaint, an enquiry was
conducted by M/s Central Coalfields Limited and based on the same, it was
found that the father of the petitioner was an impersonator and therefore the
claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment had been
rejected. Therefore the judgment under reference cited by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present
case and consequently having found no merit in this writ application, the same
is hereby dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J)
Rakesh/-
