Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 152 (JHR)

Uttam Bouri v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

2006-02-27

DHANANJAY PRASAD SINGH, R.K.MERATHIA

body2006
ORDER 1. As both the appeals have been preferred against the common judgment dated 28.8.2002 passed in CWJC No. 1839 of 1995(R), they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts of the case in short are as follow : In 1985, Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Management") issued a circular under which female employees could retire voluntarily for giving service in favour of her husband or son or son-in-law. The mother of Uttam Bouri (respondent in LPA No. 520/02 and appellant in LPA No. 493/02) applied under the said scheme and a letter offering appointment was issued to Uttam Bouri on 19.1.1993/2.2.1993. But before he could be appointed, the said scheme was terminated by a circular dated 2.3.1993. On this basis, the Management informed the mother of Uttam Bouri that the employment of Uttam Bouri cannot be considered under the said scheme. Though the mother of Uttam Bouri was stopped from attending her duties, for some time, by mistake, she was allowed to join her duty and then she worked till her superannuation, on attaining the age of 60 years on 1.1.1995 Uttam Bouri filed writ petition being CWJC No. 1839 of 1995(R) challenging the said order dated 26.5.1993. 3. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition; set aside the impugned order dated 26.5.1993 and directed the Management to appoint him in place of his mother under the said scheme and pursuant to his letter of appointment dated 19.1.1993/2.2.1993. Against this part of the order, the Management has filed LPA No. 520 of 2002. However, the learned single Judge held that the petitioner is entitled to wages and salary only from the date he resumes his duty pursuant to this order. Against this part of the order, LPA No. 493 of 2002 has been filed by Uttam Bouri claiming back wages from the date of his appointment. 4. While admitting this Letters Patent Appeal on 20th November, 2002, operation of the impugned judgment dated 28.8.2002 was stayed. 5. In our opinion, no right accrued to Uttam Bouri or her mother on the basis of issuance of letter of appointment as it was withdrawn1 before it was actually acted upon. Moreover, the fact remains that mother of Uttam Bouri continued to work till her superannuation. 5. In our opinion, no right accrued to Uttam Bouri or her mother on the basis of issuance of letter of appointment as it was withdrawn1 before it was actually acted upon. Moreover, the fact remains that mother of Uttam Bouri continued to work till her superannuation. Thereafter she or her son Uttam Bouri cannot have any claim based on the said scheme, It may also be noted that when the impugned order was passed by learned single Judge, about eight years had passed and now the distance of time after such superannuation is about twelve years. In any view of the matter, no relief can be granted to Uttam Bouri. 6. In the result, impugned order dated 28.8.2002 passed in CWJC No. 1839 of 1995(R) is set aside; LPA No. 520 of 2002 is allowed and LPA No. 493 of 2002 is dismissed. No. Costs.