Jharkhand High Court
Ranjeet Singh vs The General Manager on 29 January, 2024
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 549 of 2014
Ranjeet Singh ..... Appellant
Versus
1. The General Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd Chasnala Colliery, P.O.
Chasnala, Patherdih, Dhanbad
2. The Manager (PL) Steel Authority of India Ltd. Chasnala Colliery, Chasnala
Patherdih, Dhanbad
3. The Deputy Manager (PL) Steel Authority of India Ltd. Jitpur Colliery, Jitpur,
Dhanbad
4. Welfare Officer (Mining) Chasnala Colliery, Patherdih, Dhanbad
5. Sri Om Prakash Jha ..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
---------
09/ 29.01.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.11.2014 passed in Civil
Review No. 95 of 2013 by which the review application was allowed and the
writ petition was directed to be listed in the 2nd week of December, 2014.
It is the case of the appellant that his father late Anup Singh was a
permanent employee of SAIL and his mother late Anita Devi was also an
employee of respondent SAIL. Mother of the appellant died on 28.05.1992 and
the father of the appellant died on 18.07.1996 leaving behind the petitioner and
a daughter, namely, Durga Kaur. After attaining majority, the appellant had
applied for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that his mother
had died in harness and it appears that the sister of the appellant had also
claimed for compassionate appointment. Since the respondent SAIL was not
acting upon the plea of compassionate appointment of the appellant, he had
moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6063 if 2008 wherein the following order was
passed :
"Since there is no dispute about the factum that the
petitioner is son of the deceased employee, therefore, asking
the petitioner to obtain Court decree to give him
appointment under dieng in harness Rules, on account of
the death of his mother, seems to be totally unjustified,
arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The present writ petition is disposed of with direction to
the authorities to take positive decision in accordance with
law on the request of the petitioner seeking appointment on
compassionate ground on account of the death of his
mother. Let the entre exercise be completed within two
months from the date, the certified copy of this order is
presented before the authorities."
The respondent-SAIL being aggrieved with the order dated 29.06.2012
passed in W.P.(S) No. 6063 of 2008 had preferred L.P.A. No. 55 of 2013 which
however was dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2013. The respondent SAIL,
thereafter, had preferred an application for review of the order dated
29.06.2012, passed in W.P.(S) No. 6063 of 2008 on the ground that several
claimants had applied for compassionate appointment and therefore the finding
recorded by the Writ Court that there was no dispute that the appellant was son
of the deceased employee was erroneous and the said review application being
Civil Review No. 95 of 2013 was allowed on 19.11.2014 and the judgment and
the order dated 29.06.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6063 of 2008 was recalled.
Being aggrieved with the order dated 19.11.2014 passed in Civil Review
No. 95 of 2013, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
3. Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant submits that against
the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6063 of 2008 the respondent had preferred an
appeal which was dismissed on merits and based on the same materials, they
had once again preferred a review application and it has further been stated that
there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the appellant is the son of late
Anita Devi though the respondent had tried to project the picture that he is the
son of Gurmit Kaur, the name which was adopted by her mother after her
marriage with the father of the appellant late Anup Singh.
4. Mr. Ankit Vishal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-SAIL
submits that the review application itself is replete with several instances, which
dispute the fact that the appellant is the sole claimant for being granted
compassionate appointment apart from various discrepancies which have been
pointed out in the said review application and which has been appropriately
considered in the order dated 19.11.2014 passed in Civil Review No. 95 of
2013.
5. It appears from the impugned order that there are several discrepancies
with respect to the claim of the appellant. In fact in the review application
which has been filed by the respondent SAIL the discrepancies have been
categorically noted to the effect that in the declaration form of Anup Singh
(father of the appellant), the name of the appellant does not figure in the year
1988, though the appellant claims he was born on 01.11.1983. It has further
been mentioned in the review application that late Anup Singh had declared on
27.01.1988 the name of his wife as Gurmit Kaur but the appellant is claiming
compassionate appointment on the death of his mother, namely, Anita Devi
which is a further discrepancy pointed out by the respondent-SAIL. In fact the
sister of the appellant namely Durga Kaur has in her affidavit mentioned the
name of her mother as Gurmit Kaur and not Anita Devi. Even in the family
declaration dated 20.12.1991 the name of Gurmit Kaur figures prominently and
there is absence of the name of Anita Devi. The review application had
considered all these aspects of the matter and it is categorical therefore that
there was a dispute with respect to the appellant being the son of the deceased
employee Anita Devi. Accordingly, the order dated 29.06.2012 passed in
W.P.(S) No. 6063 of 2008 was reviewed by this Court in Civil Review No. 95 of
2013.
6. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that the finding of the Writ Court
is erroneous and which was correctly reviewed in terms of the order dated
19.11.2014 passed in Civil Review No. 95 of 2013.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts we, therefore, do not find any reason to
entertain this appeal which accordingly stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any,
stands closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
