Lacho Bhuiya vs The Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Another

J.C.S. Rawat, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs ;

for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondent to immediately and forthwith provide service to the Petitioner on compassionate ground in place of his father who died in harness on 11.3.1997.

And/or for any other order/direction that your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances fo the present case.

The father of the Petitioner died in harness on 11.3.1997 and thereafter he moved an application before the Respondents seeking his compassionate appointment . The said application has not been disposed of by the Respondents and hence this writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner.

The writ petition was contested on the ground that the Petitioner crossed the age of 38 years on 11.3.1997 and therefore he cannot be employed in view of Clause 9.4.0 (iv) of the NCWA. In Annexures A and B to the counter affidavit, it is only stated that the competent authority has only regretted the same.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that the Petitioner''s application has not so far been disposed of and the correspondence which were filed before this Court is in between the department of the Respondents which has not been communicated to the Petitioner. He also contended that the ground which has not been taken in Annexures A and B cannot be supplemented by a counter affidavit and the learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the writ petition has been filed belatedly .

I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records.

From perusal of the records, it is revealed that Annexures A and B to the counter affidavit clearly reveals that those letters were written in between the department of the Respondents. There is no iota of fact that it was communicated to the Petitioner and therefore the Petitioner could not come to Court earlier in time. The order which is said to have been passed,-though in between the department,-only indicates that the competent authority has only regretted the same, The counter affidavit filed before this Court shows that the Petitioner had completed the age of 38 years on the date of the death of the deceased and that his candidature cannot be considered in view of the above provisions of the NCWA. The said ground has not been taken in the departmental correspondence (Annexures A and B to the counter affidavit) rejecting the claim of the Petitioner and no reason has been assigned for the same. Annexures A and B to the counter affidavit have not been communicated to the Petitioner. In this view of the matter, it is not clear as to how he could come to know that his claim for compassionate appointment under the Scheme has been rejected. Even though it is assumed that such rejection was made through inter-departmental communications as revealed from Annexures A and B to the counter affidavit, now it requires consideration whether it is within the requirement of law. Law requires that while considering the claim of a person who claims appointment on compassionate ground, the authority should apply his mind and then pass a speaking order while rejecting the claim. The communications do not disclose reasons as to why the application of the Petitioner has been rejected. They have not applied their mind while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner in their inter departmental communications. Learned Counsel for the Respondents could not demonstrate me that they have disclosed reasons in any of their communications or any order communicated to the Petitioner. Thus, the communications as contained in Annexures A and B to the counter affidavit are non-est in the eyes of law and as such no reliance can be placed on the said communications.

7 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Respondents are directed to dispose of the application filed by the Petitioner before the Respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, by passing a speaking order and the said order be communicated to the Petitioner immediately thereafter.

This writ petition is thus disposed of. No order as to costs.