Allowed¶23

Soni Devi v. Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Jharkhand HC18 Mar 2024WPC/564/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC (Dr. S.N. Pathak, sole judge) allows W.P.(S) 564/2024: widow daughter-in-law Soni Devi seeks mandamus for compassionate appointment under NCWA after BCCL W/loader mother-in-law died in harness 03.06.2016; elder son's candidature rejected 03.10.2018 (over age); petitioner's age verified by Medical Board as 32 years six months (report 07.12.2020) yet respondent-BCCL delayed four years; Court holds petitioner entitled in view of NCWA and directs respondent No.4 (Project Officer, Bhagaband Colliery Project) to issue compassionate appointment within six weeks of receipt of order copy.

What did the court decide?

Directive to respondent No.4 to consider the petitioner's case in view of NCWA and, if found true, issue the compassionate appointment within six weeks from receipt of copy of the order. ¶23

Soni Devi Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Directive to respondent No.4 to consider the petitioner's case in view of NCWA and, if found true, issue the compassionate appointment within six weeks from receipt of copy of the order.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose mother-in-law (employed as a W/loader in BCCL) died in harness and whose age was assessed by the Medical Board as 32 years six months, is entitled to compassionate appointment in view of NCWA, warranting issuance of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider her case and issue appointment.

¶15

Court's answer

As the matter had already been verified, the age assessed by the Medical Board, and the documents were lying with respondent-BCCL, the Court concluded that after considering the relevant facts the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment in view of the NCWA, and it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider her case.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The respondent No.4 was expressly directed to consider the petitioner's case in view of NCWA and, if it is found true that she is entitled, the compassionate appointment shall be issued to her within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-judge ruling of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) allowing W.P.(S) No. 564 of 2024 (decided 18.03.2024). Petitioner Soni Devi sought mandamus directing the respondents to consider her for compassionate appointment in view of NCWA following the death in harness (03.06.2016) of her mother-in-law, employed as a W/loader in BCCL; the mother-in-law's elder son had been rejected on 03.10.2018 for over-age, and the petitioner's age had been assessed by the Medical Board at 32 years six months (report dated 07.12.2020), yet respondent-BCCL did not process her case for four years. The Court held that, with the matter verified, the age assessed and the documents lying with respondent-BCCL, the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment in view of the NCWA; it directed respondent No.4 to consider her case and, if found true, issue the appointment within six weeks of receipt of the order copy.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 564 of 2024

Soni Devi

………. Petitioner

Versus

1.Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Dist.-Ranchi

¶8

2.Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited Darbhanga House, Dist.Ranchi

¶9

3.General Manager (P &IR), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Dist.-Ranchi

¶10

4.Project Officer, Bhagaband Colliery Project, Bharat Coal India Limited, Dist.-Dhanbad ………. Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK

¶13

----------For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate For the Resp.BCCL : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate

¶14

¶15

03/ 18.03.2024 Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider her case for compassionate appointment on account of death of her mother-in-law and issue appointment accordingly.

¶16

2. It is case of the petitioner that mother-in-law of the petitioner was employed in BCCL as a W/loader, who died in harness on 03.06.2016, leaving behind her elder son and widow daughter-in-law Soni Devi and grandchildren. After death of the mother-in-law elder son applied for appointment on the compassionate ground but his candidature was rejected on 03.10.2018 as he was over age. The present petitioner applied for compassionate appointment thereafter in appropriate forum with relevant documents. The case of the petitioner was considered and she was referred for Medical Board for assessment of the age. The final age assessed by the Medical Board was 32 years and six months, as per report dated 07.12.2020. It is specific case of the petitioner that even no objection was raised in favour of her by the family members and thereafter four years have passed but case of the petitioner has not been considered by respondent-BCCL till date.

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it is the fit case in which mandamus should be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in view of NCWA and as it is the respondent-BCCL who

¶18

-2-

¶19

has referred the matter for age assessment and as per the report, it was found that petitioner’s case was within the zone of consideration, her case ought to have been considered and appointment letter to that effect should have been issued.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-BCCL submits that in absence of counter-affidavit, she is not in a position to counter the statements as made in the writ petition and as argued by petitioner’s counsel.

¶21

5. Since the matter has already been verified, the age has been assessed by the Medical Board the documents are lying with the respondent-BCCL. After considering the relevant facts petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment in view of the NCWA, it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider the same. Since the mother-in-law of the petitioner died in harness, in view of the financial crunch faced by the family member.

¶22

6. I hereby direct the respondent No.4 to consider the case of the petitioner in view of NCWA. If it is found true, petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment and the same shall be issued to her within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶23

7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed.

¶24

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶25

Rohit-

Soni Devi v. Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soni Devi v. Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Chandra Mukherjee Vs Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Hemant Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Komal Tiwari Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs

Pappu Mahato Vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Represented Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Shambhu Nath Jha Vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.

Dinbandhu Mishra Vs Human Resources Department