Jharkhand High Court
Deepak Goswami Son Of Late Ratan ... vs Central Coalfields Limited on 2 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.2825 of 2019
----
Deepak Goswami son of late Ratan Lal Goswami, resident of Dhouri
Basti, PO PS Bermo, District Bokaro.
... Petitioner
-versus-
1. Central Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, a
Government of India Undertaking, having its registered Office at
Darbhanga House, Ranchi, through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited,
Darbhanga House, Ranchi.
3. Director, Personnel, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House,
Ranchi.
4. Sr. Manager, Personnel (P/M P), Central Coalfields Limited,
Darbhanga House, Ranchi.
5. Project Officer, Dhori Area, PO PS Bermo, District Bokaro.
6. Staff Officer (Personnel), Dhori Area, PO PS Bermo, District Bokaro.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Uday Prakash, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Syed Ramiz Zafar, Advocate
----
5/ 02.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the respondents.
2. This is a writ of certiorari challenging the order dated 04.05.2018
passed by the Senior Manager (P/MP), Central Coalfields Limited, whereby
the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rejected.
3. Since this is a writ of certiorari and the detail orders and the
grounds for challenge is there in the order itself, it is not necessary to call for
any counter affidavit, as in terms of the judgment in the case of Mohinder
Singh Gill & Anr. Versus Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi &
Others, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, no affidavit can supplement the facts
and reasons which were considered for rejecting the application, which are
reflected in the impugned order itself.
4. Father of this petitioner, namely, Ratan Lal Goswami was an
employee of Central Coalfields Limited. He was a Category I Mazdoor. He
died on 12.07.2016 in harness. Petitioner, being his son, applied for
compassionate appointment. It is the case of the respondents that the date of
birth/age of the petitioner, which was recorded in different service records of
his father did not match with each other. The School Leaving Certificate of the
petitioner shows that his date of birth is 01.01.1983. In the Aadhaar Card also,
his date of birth was mentioned as 01.01.1983. As the respondents felt that
there was confusion in respect of the date of birth of the petitioner, he was
subjected to age assessment by a Medical Committee. The Committee
assessed his age to be between 35 and 40 years as on the date of the
assessment. Be it noted that the maximum age for appointment in Central
Coalfields Limited is 35 years. Since his age, on the date of age assessment,
was between 35 and 40 years, the respondents considered his age as 37 ½
years, i.e., midpoint on the date of age assessment. Considering the same, it
is the case of the respondents that on the date of application, his age would be
more than 35 years, thus, he is not eligible to be employed in Central
Coalfields Limited on compassionate grounds. It is the case of the petitioner
that on the date of age assessment, he was of 35 to 40 years, whereas he
applied for compassionate appointment on 03.09.2016. Be it noted that the
age assessment report is dated 28.02.2018. It is his case that this period of
two years should have been granted to the petitioner and in that case his age
should have been less than 37 ½ years, rather his age should have been 36
years 1 month as on the date of assessment, but, since this is benefit oriented
scheme, his age should have been treated as less than 35 years.
5. The fact remains that in the month of February 2018, his age was
assessed between 35 and 40 years, whereas application for compassionate
appointment was made in the year 2016. The scheme for grant of
compassionate appointment is to give benefit to the family of the bread winner,
who died in harness, leaving the entire family in financial distress. What would
be the age after due assessment and whether the midpoint can be taken for
the aforesaid purpose has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in
L.P.A. No.372 of 2021. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has held that the
lower age limit should be considered as the actual age for the purpose of grant
of compassionate appointment, where the age is assessed by the age
assessment committee. The order passed by this Court was challenged before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19183 of 2022,
but, the same was not interfered with. In this case in 2018 lower age limit was
35 years. Application for grant of compassionate appointment is two years
prior to that, which means that his age on the date of application would
definitely be less than 35 years, thus, on the date of application, considering
the judgment of this Court in L.P.A. No.372 of 2021, petitioner was well within
the prescribed age limit for getting employment in Central Coalfields Limited.
6. Considering what has been discussed above, impugned order
dated 04.05.2018 passed by the Senior Manager (P/MP), Central Coalfields
Limited is hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to take appropriate
decision on grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner and issue
appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from today.
7. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
