AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. B. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Coal India Ltd.
The petitioner''s father died in harness on 11.10.2010 while serving under the respondents/Coal India Limited. Thereafter, the respondents
issued a letter on 29.09.2011 to the petitioner''s mother asking for submission of claim for dependent employment/ monetary compensation within
6 (six) months after the death of her husband. It was also mentioned that after 6 (six) months from the death of her husband, the case of the
petitioner''s mother will not be entertained in future. The petitioner accordingly made an application for dependent employment on 19.12.2011,
however, the same was returned for re-submission in the prescribed format. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the application on 10.01.2012.
The claim was rejected by the respondents on 01.09.2012 on the ground of late submission of the application. Another order was passed by the
respondents on 06.11.2015 indicating that the claim of the petitioner for dependent employment was not acceptable by the respondents in view of
the discrepancies in his age as apparent from the service book of the petitioner''s late father and the age recorded in his HSLC Admit Card. Being
aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by way of WP(C) 3091/2016. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 01.08.2016,
whereby this Court observed that the application dated 19.12.2011 and the subsequent application dated 10.01.2012 was within 6 (six) months
time granted for submitting claim for dependent employment, particularly, taking into consideration that the information contained in the letter dated
29.09.2011 was issued beyond 6 (six) months of the demise of the petitioner''s father. A very important observation was also made by this Court
that the petitioner''s mother did not apply for monetary compensation.
In the order dated 01.08.2016, in so far as the discrepancy in the age of the petitioner was concerned, this Court also made an observation that
least regard to more reliable document i.e., HSLC Admit Card showing the age of the petitioner was made and the respondents could not have
ignored the same. In that view of the matter, liberty was also granted to the respondents to verify the HSLC Admit Card with the Board of
Secondary Education, Assam.
Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 issued another communication dated 02.01.2017 rejecting the case of the petitioner for dependent
employment by taking another new ground, that from the extracts of the petitioners passport it was evident that the petitioner was engaged in
Singapore between 04.01.2008 and 04.01.2011. Being aggrieved by the rejection, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the rejection
letter dated 02.01.2017.
At the outset, it is to be clarified that this Court had already made an observation with regard to the date of application for claim of dependent
appointment as well as with regard to his date of birth. It was held that the application of the petitioner for dependent appointment on 19.12.2011
and thereafter on 10.01.2012 was within the 6(six) months time granted for submitting claim for dependent employment. Further, with regard to
the date of birth of the petitioner, this Court had made an observation that the reliable document i.e., H.S.L.C Admit Card was given the least
regard and therefore, the respondents were given liberty to verify the same with the Board of Secondary Education, Assam. A perusal of the order
dated 02.01.2017 would indicate that the date of birth of the petitioner was verified with the SEBA and it has been confirmed that the date of birth
of the petitioner is 01.03.1984.
However, in the impugned letter dated 02.01.2018, the respondents had taken another ground that the case of the petitioner could not be
considered as he was already engaged in Singapore between 04.01.2008 and 04.01.2011. This is a new ground which has been taken by the
respondents after the judicial pronouncement has been made by this court in WP(C)/3091/2016. This is not permissible. In any view of the matter,
the engagement of the petitioner in Singapore between 04.01.2008 and 04.01.2011 is inconsequential inasmuch as the application of the petitioner
was made on 19.12.2011 and thereafter on 10.01.2012. It is to be noted that the petitioner, at the time of making the application was not
employed.
In that view of the matter this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned letter dated 02.01.2017 is vitiated and the same is
accordingly set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for dependent employment/compassionate
employment against the next immediate vacancy that arises in future. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.