Disposed

Gunjiya Munda v. M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Limited through Its C M D

Jharkhand HC13 Sept 2024WPC/4935/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment claim was rejected on suspicion of a forged transfer certificate used for age verification. The Court found no educational certificate was required since the employer had itself verified age via its Medical Board and no forgery was established. Writ disposed of directing the appellate authority (Director Personnel) to decide the pending appeal within 12 weeks in light of

What did the court decide?

Appellate authority (respondent No.2) directed to decide pending appeal within 12 weeks in light of the Court's observations; writ application disposed of accordingly.

Gunjiya Munda Vs M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Limited… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 4935 of 2023

¶3

Gunjiya Munda, aged about-29 years, S/o Munesher Munda, R/o-Quarter No.-33, Near Shiv Mandir, Bhuli, D- Block-7, Tiadaha, P.O.-Bhuli, P.S.-Bhuli, DistrictDhanbad, Jharkhand.

¶4

....Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its C.M.D. having its office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Koyla Nagar, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand;

¶7

Director Personnel, Bharat Coking Coal Limited having its office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Koyla Nagar, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand;

¶8

General Manager (P & IR), Bharat Coking Coal Limited having its office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Koyla Nagar, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand;

¶9

Project Officer, Dharsar Industrial Colliery, Bharat Coking Coal Limited having its office at Dhansar Industry Colliery, P.O. & P.S.-Dhansar, DistrictDhanbad, Jharkhand.

¶10

....Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner : Ms. Shruti Shrestha, Adv. For the Resp.-BCCL : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Adv.

¶14

04/Dated:-13.09.2024

¶15

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶16

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the impugned order dated 23.11.2019; addressed to the mother of the petitioner, whereby the claim for compassionate appointment of this petitioner has been rejected.

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the death of his father, he duly applied for compassionate appointment within time; however, the case of the petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel further submits that when the respondent department asked for certificate for the purpose of verification of age, he duly submitted a T.C. Certificate, but unfortunately, for the reason best known to the respondents,

¶18

the same created doubt in the mind of the respondents as they could not find the counter-foil of that transfer certificate. Perhaps, the said transfer certificate has not been found to be appropriate as per the letter of the District Education Officer.

¶19

It has been submitted by learned counsel that there was no requirement for submission of certificate, but the petitioner duly submitted the same, because he was studying in that school and he was not knowing as to whether the proper formalities was completed before issuing the transfer certificate, but after perusing the letter of the District Education Officer, which is the sole basis for rejection of the claim of this petitioner, it can safely be said that the same is misplaced because even the District Education Officer is not confident as to whether the said certificate was fake or not; rather, it can be said that the District Education Officer was not confident with regard to the issuance of certificate.

¶20

She reiterated that even otherwise, there was no requirement for submission of educational certificate because the respondents had already examined him for age verification; as such, the instant writ application may be allowed and the respondents be directed to issue necessary appointment letter. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents draws attention of this Court towards a letter written by the Block Education Extension Officer addressed to the District Education Officer, wherein he has created some doubt with regard to the transfer certificate and since it has become a case of fake certificate, the case of the petitioner has been rejected.

¶21

5. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, the instant writ application requires interference for the following reasons:

¶22

(i) It is not a case of the respondents that any educational certificate was required for the purpose of getting

¶23

¶24

appointment on compassionate ground.

¶25

(ii) The respondents themselves have ascertained the age of this petitioner by way of their internal mechanism. (iii) By perusing the letter dated 07.12.2018 written by the Block Education Extension Officer addressed to the District Education Officer, it does not transpire that the said certificate is forged; rather, there are some missing links in issuing the certificate to the effect that the respondents could not find the counter-foil of that transfer certificate and the same was informed to the District Education Officer and only due to that letter, the case of the petitioner has been rejected.

¶26

(iv) The petitioner was never asked by the Block Education Officer as to why some documents are missing and/or who is the person who gave this certificate. Only a general report has been given by the Block Education Extension Officer to the District Education Officer.

¶27

However, even admitting the stand of the respondents with regards to the transfer certificate; then also it cannot be termed as an act of submission of forged certificate; because only counter-foils etc., were not there. (v) As stated hereinabove, there was no reason, whatsoever, for asking the petitioner to submit the certificate for age verification, inasmuch as, the respondents themselves have ascertained the age of this petitioner by their internal Medical Board.

¶28

6. It has been informed by learned counsel for the parties that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is still pending before the competent authority; as such, interest of justice would be sufficed by directing the appellate authority i.e. respondent No.2, to take a decision and pass an appropriate order in the light of aforesaid observation, within a period of 12 weeks.

¶29

¶30

7. As a result, the instant writ application stands

¶31

disposed of in the manner indicated herein above.

¶32

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶33

vikas/-

¶34

Gunjiya Munda v. M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Limited through Its C M D

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunjiya Munda v. M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Limited through Its C M D

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Department

Gonolal Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt

Gobind Besra Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt

Umesh Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

MD Manzoor Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sushen Chandra Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Water Resource