RANCHI, India, Dec. 5 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Nov. 5:

1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- i. For quashing of order dated 08.08.2020 contained in Letter No. 3630 issued by Respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder claim of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment on account of death of his father Lakhan Ray, P in No. 01239976, JNTA Koyla Nagar in harness, has been rejected. ii. For direction upon the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner in accordance with 9.3.3 of NCWA in view of the fact that the father of the petitioner ex-maison died in harness.

2. The father of the petitioner namely, Lakhan Ray was a permanent employee under the respondents who died in harness on 31.08.2009. After his death, the petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment on 28.04.2010 under Clause 9.3.3 of the National Coal Wage Agreement, since his father left behind his wife and the petitioner. The petitioner was called for a medical examination, but was declared unfit because of defective vision and was directed to provide a handicapped certificate for being appointed in Physically Handicapped (P.H.) quota. He applied for handicapped certificate and the same was issued to him on 23.04.2018 which was submitted to the respondents but his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected vide rejection letter dated 08.08.2020.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, as they failed to grant him compassionate appointment under Clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA despite of obtaining handicapped certificate. He further submits that the rejection letter dated 08.08.2020 is unjust because the respondents' own medical board had already declared him handicapped due to defective vision and had offered to consider him under the P.H. quota. He also submits that the petitioner obtained a handicapped certificate acting on direction of the respondents, therefore, denying appointment on the ground of a post-dated certificate is unreasonable.

4. The learned counsel for respondents submits that the Physically Handicapped certificate was issued too late, and by that time, the petitioner had already crossed 35 years of age, which is beyond the eligible age limit for compassionate appointment. He further submits that despite sufficient time and opportunity, the petitioner obtained and submitted the handicapped certificate on 23.04.2018, i.e, almost nine years after the death of his father and four years after being declared medically unfit. He also submits that on the date of submission of the P.H. certificate, the petitioner had already crossed the maximum age limit as prescribed for appointments, thus, he cannot be appointed.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xylmNbTg6Cw%2BtNCFeJJFpQ%2Ff5jhOY88eYTA13AgF3N5H&caseno=WPC/6005/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010129612025&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.