MOHAN MAHTO versus M/S. CENTRAL COAL FIELD LTD. & ORS.

MOHAN MAHTO versus M/S. CENTRAL COAL FIELD LTD. & ORS.

The rejection of compassionate appointment based on non-statutory period of limitation in unilateral circulars, contrary to the binding settlement provisions, was neither fair nor reasonable nor bona fide. The company, as 'State' under Article 12, was required to act in accordance with the settlement and provide appointment.

Parties
Appellant: Mohan Mahto; Respondents: M/s. Central Coal Field Ltd. & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside.
Legal Topics
Compassionate Appointment, Industrial Settlement, Period of Limitation, Public Sector Undertaking as State Under Article 12
Labour Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Compassionate Appointment Industrial Settlement Period of Limitation Public Sector Undertaking as State Under Article 12

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohan Mahto

Appellant

M/s. Central Coal Field Ltd. & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the period of limitation prescribed by a circular can override the terms of a binding settlement regarding compassionate appointment
  2. 2 Whether the action of the respondent company in rejecting appointment on compassionate grounds was fair, reasonable, and bona fide under Article 12

Ratio Decidendi

The rejection of compassionate appointment based on non-statutory period of limitation in unilateral circulars, contrary to the binding settlement provisions, was neither fair nor reasonable nor bona fide. The company, as 'State' under Article 12, was required to act in accordance with the settlement and provide appointment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside.

Orders

  • Respondent directed to offer appointment to appellant on suitable post within eight weeks from date.
  • Appellant entitled to costs throughout; counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 25,000/-