JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON LAXMAN SINGH V/S THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR

RANCHI, India, March 10 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Feb. 9:

1. Heard the parties.

2. This is a case of certiorari. Thus, it is not necessary to call for a counter-affidavit from the respondents.

3. The petitioner seeks to quash Annexure-12, which is a Communication dated 04.09.2025 by which the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he is aged more than 35 years.

4. After going through the records, I find that the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner after arriving at a conclusion that he is aged more than 35 years on the date of the death of employee based on some entries of age of the petitioner in the service records of his father and also after medically assessing this petitioner.

5. The father of the petitioner was an employee of Bharat Coking Coal Limited who died in harness on 18.04.2020. The petitioner filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment but ultimately the same was rejected on the ground that in the service book of the father of the petitioner, the age of this petitioner was recorded and there is divergent recording and as per the said recording, the petitioner is aged more than 35 years at the time of death. The petitioner was further subjected to a medical examination and it was found that he was aged more than 35 years.

6. I find that the petitioner has brought on record the Matriculation Certificate. The Matriculation Certificate of the petitioner has been issued by Jharkhand Academic Council. The said certificate has been duly verified at the instance of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited and the same was found to be genuine. The genuineness certificate has also been brought on record as Annexure-7. Both in the Matriculation Certificate and authentication report of the JAC clearly suggest that the date of birth of the petitioner is 04.07.1985. The date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the Matriculation Certificate clearly suggest that the petitioner was aged less than 35 years on the date of death of the father of the petitioner. Further, this Matriculation Certificate is an old document.

7. In presence of the most clenching and authenticate document, which is a Matriculation Certificate, the respondents could not have relied upon any other entries made in the service records of the father of the petitioner. Thus, the ground taken by the respondents that the age of the petitioner was more than 35 years at the time of death of the father cannot be sustained. Thus, the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 is set aside.

8. The respondents are directed to pass a fresh order considering the date of birth of the petitioner as 04.07.1985 which is recorded in the Matriculation Certificate. The decision should be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If otherwise, it is found that the petitioner is entitled for a compassionate appointment, the order should be passed immediately.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.