Petitioner sought appointment for her son under NCWA Clause 9.4.0(ii) claiming medical unfitness. Court held application filed after age 58 makes her ineligible. Dismissed writ petition finding no illegality in rejection.
Writ petition dismissed; no appointment direction granted for petitioner's son.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S)No.6272 of 2016
Sudha Devi. … … …Petitioner
-Versus-
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioners: Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. M.B.Lal, Advocate.
06/ 01.10.2018 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith provide appointment in terms of Clause 9.4.0 (ii) of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) to the son of the petitioner.
2
no order has been passed, though her case is fully covered by clause 9.4.0 (ii) of N.C.W.A. When no orders were passed, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 5. Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted fact that petitioner was suffering from mental illness and it was the respondent, who have declared her medically unfit and as such as per the provision of clause 9.4.0 (ii) of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), her son is entitled for job in her place. Mr. Tiwary further argues that several representations were made before the respondentauthorities but no orders have been passed and petitioner is being harassed at the hands of the respondents and she is running from pillar to post for getting a job to her son.
3
Court in L.P.A.Nos. 614 & 615 of 2002 and vide order dated 06.11.2009 the contention of the petitioner was not considered and observation was made that any appointment has to be made in view of the provision of clause 9.4.0.(ii) and if the provision itself shows that the appointment cannot be considered. The respondents have rightly rejected the case of the petitioner in view of L.P.A.No.614 and 615 of 2002 and also in view of the fact that clause 9.4.0. (ii) N.C.W.A. does not permit consideration of the petitioner on the ground that she had made application after crossing the age of 58 years. There is no illegality or infirmity in not considering her case for giving employment to her son under clause 9.4.0.(ii).
P.K.S.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an employee who applies for appointment of her son under Clause 9.4.0(ii) of NCWA after crossing the age of 58 years is entitled to the benefit.
Whether the High Court should have directed the respondents to pass an order on the petitioner's application despite non-consideration due to age bar.
Whether the non-consideration of the petitioner's application for employment of her son was legal in view of her age at the time of application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
L.P.A.Nos. 614 & 615 of 2002Followed¶22
Sudha Devi
Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cumManaging Director
The Director of Personnel, Central Coalfields Limited
The General Manager (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited
The General Manager (X), Central Coalfields Limited
The Senior Manager (Personnel) Central Coalfields Ltd.
Dr. S.N.Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
