Board against his initial medical examination, as per the provisions of Rule 29-J.
Sub-rule 2 (a) & 3 of the Mines Rules, 1955. Counter affidavit has been filed on ...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P. (S) No. 117 of 2008 … Rajesh Kumar Yadav … … Petitioner -V e r s u sM/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad & Others … Respondents. … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK. … For the Petitioner : - Mr. Sidheshwar Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondent-B.C.C.L. : - Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate. … 3/24.04.2009 Grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is against the refusal of the Respondents-authorities to refer the petitioner to the apex Medical Board against his initial medical examination, as per the provisions of Rule 29-J Sub-rule 2 (a) & 3 of the Mines Rules, 1955. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent-B.C.C.L. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for his compassionate appointment on the death of his father who died on 03rd April, 2002. His prayer was initially rejected on the ground that the application for compassionate appointment has been filed after a period of 25 months and three days. The matter was again referred to the Respondents with the intervention of this Court in an earlier writ application, but again the prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected on the same grounds. The second time when the petitioner approached this Court, a firm direction was issued by this Court, directing the Respondents to consider the petitioner’s prayer for his compassionate appointment in accordance with the relevant Rules. Thereafter, the Respondents-authorities have referred the petitioner for medical examination. The Medical Report issued by the Board, indicated that the petitioner was not medically fit. The petitioner thereafter sought the privilege as laid down under the provisions of Rule 29-J Sub-rule 2 (a) & 3 of the Mines Rules, 1955 for reference of his case to the Appellate Medical Board against the initial medical examination. Such demand was made by the petitioner vide his letter dated 12th October, 2007, followed by a reminder, dated 23rd November, 2007, but till date the Respondents have not responded as yet. Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned counsel for the RespondentsB.C.C.L. submits that the petitioner after the initial medical examination was not found medically fit on account of the fact that he suffers from colour blindness. Learned counsel explains that the Respondents-authorities have no grudge or malice against the petitioner and the Respondents cannot certainly absorb any person who is not medically fit for appointment. Nevertheless, the petitioner can be referred to the Appellate Medical Board in view of the provisions laid down under Rule 29-J Sub-rule 2 (a) & 3 of the Mines Rules, 1955.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, the Respondentsauthorities shall within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, constitute the appellate Medical Board and refer the petitioner’s case for his re-medical examination as per the Rule 29-J Sub-rule 2 (a) & 3 of the Mines Rules, 1955. With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondents-B.C.C.L.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.) APK
