Calcutta High Court: An appeal was filed by Eastern Coalfields Limited (appellant) against an order dated 16-03-2023, passed by a Single Judge of Calcutta High Court allowing an application seeking compassionate appointment. A division bench of Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi, JJ., held that the Single Judge had failed to consider the documentary evidence regarding the petitioner’s age and did not allow the appellant a fair opportunity to contest the writ petition.
A writ petition was filed by an individual seeking compassionate appointment following the death of his father, an employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited, who passed away on 28-09-2018, but his application was rejected on 24-06-2020, on the grounds that he was over-aged at the time of the application. This rejection led the petitioner to seek judicial intervention to overturn the decision and secure the compassionate appointment, arguing that his age was within the permissible limits and providing documentary evidence to support his claim.
Counsel for the appellant argued that they were not provided with a reasonable opportunity to contest the writ petition, as they were not allowed to file an affidavit to contest the merits of the writ petition. The Single Judge had called for a report from the appellant limited to the requirement of a pre-employment medical examination, rather than allowing a comprehensive contestation of the petition’s merits.
The core issue in the present case was the determination of the writ petitioner’s age. The petitioner had provided documentary evidence related to his educational qualifications to establish his age. However, the Single Judge directed an ossification test, a scientific method to determine age to be undertaken at a specified Government Hospital without first assessing the documentary evidence provided by the petitioner.
The Court observed that the Single Judge had failed to consider the documentary evidence regarding the petitioner’s age and did not allow the appellant a fair opportunity to contest the writ petition.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 16-03-2023 and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits. The appellant was given three weeks to file an affidavit in opposition to the writ petition, with a reply to be filed within two weeks thereafter.
[Eastern Coalfields Limited v Rabindra Das, M.A.T. 1280 of 2023, decided on 12-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Mr. Manik Das
For the Respondent/Writ Petitioner: Mr. Tarapada Das Mr. Chandan Dutta
For the Union of India: Mr. Subit Majumdar
The post appeared first on .