Central Coalfields Ltd. and Others vs Rohit Turi

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 17.06.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(S) NO. 4653/07 by which the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 19. 06. 2007 passed by the department rejecting the application of the petitioner/respondent on the ground of limitation in filing such application from the date of death of his father, was set aside. Inspite of the fact that the impugned order was set aside, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner/respondent-applicant on merit in regard to his claim for appointment on compassionate ground and pass appropriate order taking into consideration the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satya Narayan Choudhary reported in 2007 (3) JLJR 692. It was further observed that if necessary, the respondent i.e. the appellant-management of the Central Coalfields Ltd.(C.C.L. for short) was directed to consider in regard to grant of relaxation of age limit to the petitioner/respondent-applicant in view of the pendency of the matter before the Court and the delay caused by the respondent in disposal of the application filed by the petitioner/respondent herein.

The appellant-management of C.C.L. who was respondent before the learned Single Judge, has now preferred this appeal assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge and in support of the same, the learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sen submitted that the matter was not fit to be remanded before the authority as they had already decided the question involved in regard to the bar of the application of the respondent on the ground of limitation and this observation had already been undertaken by the appellant-management following the decision rendered in the case of Satya Narayan Choudhary(Supra).

While testing the aforesaid submission of the counsel for the appellant-management in the light of the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge it could be noticed that the learned Single Judge had himself followed the ratio given out in the case of Satya Narayan Choudhary as also the ratio in Arjun Bhuiyan''s case delivered in L.P.A.NO. 677/05 and was pleased to hold that the petitioner/respondent''s case was fit to be considered in the light of the decision rendered in the case of Arjun Bhuiyan and also in the case of Satya Narayan Choudhary. While observing that the petitioner/respondent''s case be considered in the light of Satya Narayan Choudhary''s case, the learned Single Judge seems to have missed that it has already been observed therein that the petitioner/respondent''s case is already covered by the case of Satya Narayan Choudhary and Arjun Bhuiyan as referred thereinbefore.

We have noticed that the learned Single Judge himself has held that the Circular which is in existence and effective from the date of the application of the applicant, should be held applicable which Circular would be held applicable in the case of petitioner/respondent had already been decided by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, it was a fit case where it could be held that at least in so far as the question of limitation is concerned, the petitioner/respondent''s case could not have been rejected on the ground of limitation as per the Circular. When the learned Single Judge has himself recorded that the Circular which is effective on the date of the application should be held applicable in the light of the decision recorded by him, there was no need for the learned Single Judge to remand the matter for the second time before the authority when the matter had been remanded earlier also and the said question has already been decided by the authority. In that event, the learned Single Judge could have himself examined the correctness of the order passed by the appellant-authority and there was no need to remand the matter all over again before the authority. Consequently, it was open for the learned Single Judge to at least record a conclusive finding that the respondent-applicant''s application for grant of compassionate appointment could not have been rejected on the ground of limitation so that at least the question of limitation could have been set at rest.

In fact the learned Single Judge has himself allowed the writ petition and it is not a matter where the writ petition was disposed of from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the application on the question of limitation was perfectly decided by the learned Single Judge. But, inspite of this, he remanded the matter for the second time before the authority to consider not only the question in regard to the age relaxation but also on limitation. The question of limitation, in our view, should not have been left open to be decided by the authority as the learned Single Judge himself has recorded that the Circular on the date of the application, could have been made applicable in the case of the petitioner/respondent.

However, we are conscious of the fact that this appeal has not been filed by the respondent-applicant and the writ petition has been allowed in his favour. In that event, it would result into an anomaly if we state that the respondent should have filed this appeal. It cannot be overlooked that this appeal has not been filed by the respondent-workman but by the management of the C.C.L. on the ground that the matter should not have been remanded to it as it has already decided the matter. If we were to accede to this request, then the logical inference would be that the writ petition should have been allowed in its entirety and not merely by observing that the matter is remanded to the authority. This has given rise to an anomalous situation at the instance of the appellant-management which submitted that no decision can be made in favour of the respondent-workman, as he has not preferred any appeal and is merely a respondent in this appeal.

There being substance in what has been contended above, we are left with no option than to dismiss this appeal preferred at the instance of the management, which had been directed to decide the matter afresh not merely on the ground of limitation but also with regard to relaxation of age. However, in the interest of equity, we, observe that since the question of limitation already stands concluded by the observation of by the learned Single Judge discussed hereinbefore, the authority is directed not to enter into the question of limitation by re-appreciating it. All other incidental issues including the age bar etc. which is ordered to be looked into by the learned Single Judge may however be examined by the appellant-management.

Subject to this modification of the impugned order, this appeal is dismissed.