AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
W.P.(S) No.7163 of 2011 has been filed for a direction upon the respondent-M/s BCCL to appoint the petitioner on the post of drill man or any
equivalent post on compassionate ground.
W.P.(S) No.4674 of 2012 has been filed for quashing of letter of intimation dated 07/19.04.2010 by which petitioner’s father was intimated that
he would superannuate from service with effect from 01.09.2010.
Before that, father of the petitioner namely, Basudeo Nonia came to this Court in W.P.(S) No.4017 of 2010 challenging the aforesaid intimation
dated 07/19.04.2010 but before any effective order was passed in the writ petition father of the petitioner died on 06.01.2011 and by an order dated
08.08.2012 the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn. It appears that thereafter the petitioner has filed W.P.(S) No.4674 of 2012 challenging
the intimation letter dated 07/19.04.2010. Apparent reason for challenging the letter of intimation dated 07/19.04.2010 is that the petitioner is seeking
compassionate appointment which can be allowed only when it is found that his father has died in harness.Â
In the context of letter of intimation dated 07/19.04.2010 by which father of the petitioner was intimated that he would superannuate from service
with effect from 01.09.2010, it is pertinent to indicate that father of the petitioner filed W.P.(S) No.4017 of 2010 on 16.08.2010, that is, just 14 days
prior to his superannuation from service. After this writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn the petitioner has filed W.P.(S) No.4674 of 2012 on
09.08.2012. The reason why I am recording the date of filing of the writ petitions is that at the fag end of the service a challenge to date of birth is
not entertained by the Courts [refer, “State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Gulaichi (Smt.)†reported in (2003) 6 SCC 483]. By now it is well-settled that
the writ petition involving any dispute on date of birth of an employee and his consequent retirement from service is not entertained by the writ
Courts. Even if it is found that date of birth of father of the petitioner as claimed by him is 12.08.1958, the writ petition challenging the letter of
intimation dated 07/19.04.2010 is liable to be dismissed. There is one more reason â€" this is a technical reason â€" why the W.P.(S) No.4674 of
2012 must be dismissed. The reason is in W.P.(S) No.4017 of 2010 the petitioner did not seek his impleadment as the legal heir and successor of the
employee- Basudeo Nonia. Order dated 08.08.2012 by which the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn does not indicate that the writ
petition was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh writ petition by the legal heir and successor of the employee- Basudeo Nonia.  Â
Claim for compassionate appointment raised by the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.7163 of 2011 is also liable to be rejected. This writ petition was filed
on 12.12.2011 whereas, his father has died on 06.01.2011. Reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioner on an order passed by a Single Judge
of this Court in “Kaliman Bibi vs The State of Jharkhand & Ors.†reported in 2013 (2) JLJR 356 does not indicate that this Court has laid down a
proposition in law that even after retirement of an employee an application for compassionate appointment of his dependant can be entertained. On
dismissal of W.P.(S) No.4674 of 2012 which was filed on 09.08.2012, that is, much after the death of the petitioner’s father, his superannuation
from service w.e.f. 01.09.2010 stands affirmed.Â
In view of the aforesaid facts and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, these writ petitions are dismissed.Â