Jharkhand High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner claiming compassionate appointment on death of his father, S.N. Pathak, J., opined that once the law was deemed to be legitimate, it would be impermissible to exclude from being considered under the policy. The exclusion of one class of legitimate children from seeking compassionate appointment merely on the ground that applicant’s mother was a plural wife of the deceased employee would fail to meet the test of a reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. Further, the Court opined that it was the Medical Board to ascertain and determine the age of the employee in case of any dispute. Thus, the Court directed the respondents to constitute a Medical Board comprising one of the experts in the field, regarding determination of age of the petitioner.
Earlier also, petitioner approached the Court for consideration of his case, but his claim was turned down by Central Coalfields Limited-Respondents on the ground that petitioner was the son of second wife and as such he was not entitled for consideration of appointment on compassionate grounds and that petitioner was overage on the date of consideration of his case for compassionate appointment.
The Court opined that once the law was deemed to be legitimate, it would be impermissible to exclude from being considered under the policy. The exclusion of one class of legitimate children from seeking compassionate appointment merely on the ground that the mother of the applicant was a plural wife of the deceased employee would fail to meet the test of a reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. Further, it would also be offensive and would defeat the whole objective of ensuring the dignity of the family of a deceased employee who has died in harness.
The Court opined that so far as the ground of over age was concerned, petitioner and respondents relied on various documents to prove their case that petitioner was over age or not. It was the Medical Board to ascertain and determine the age of the employee in case of any dispute. So far ground of delay taken by the respondents was concerned, the Court opined that the respondents slept with the matter for eighteen long years and as such, ground of delay could not be taken as support by them.
Since, the ground of petitioner being son of the second wife, failed, the Court directed the respondents to constitute a Medical Board comprising one of the experts in the field, regarding determination of age of the petitioner. After constitution of Medical Board, if it was found that petitioner’s age was within the age limit to be considered i.e. less than thirty-five years on the date of death of the employee, the same should be considered in accordance with law. However, if the Medical Board opined that the petitioner was over-age at the said time, his case should be rejected outrightly without further reference to the Bench. The Court stated that this exercise should be concluded within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order, and accordingly disposed of the petition.
[Suresh v. Central Coalfields Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 1427, Order dated 11-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: A.K. Sahani, Advocate and Ajit Kumar, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Darshana Poddar Mishra, Advocate.
