Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 65 (JHR)

Sukdeo Baitha v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

2008-01-28

N.N.TIWARI

body2008
ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the dismissal orders both dated 20.6.2001, issued by the respondent No. 3, General Manager, S.P. Mines Area (Annexures 4 and 4/1). 2. The petitioners case is that their land was acquired for mining purpose by the respondents and in lieu thereof, they were given employment after proper enquiry and full satisfaction of the respondents. The petitioners were given appointment letters and on that basis, they joined at Chitra Colliery in 1982. In due course, their appointments were made permanent and the petitioners were working to the satisfaction of the Management. There was nothing adverse against them. One Parwati Devi, D/o Late Rusan Baitha had filed a suit being Title (D) Suit No. 52 of 1996/25 of 1996 against the Chairman, Coal India Limited and others in the Court of Sub-Judge, Deoghar claiming half share of the compensation amount of the acquired land and job for heirs of nominee. The said suit was decreed in favour of Parwati Devi on 2.2.2000. Against the said judgment, an appeal was filed in the Court of District Judge, Deoghar being Title Appeal No. 14 of 2001. The learned Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the suit back to the Court below for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The suit after remand is still pending. 3. Respondent No. 5, Regional Manager, S.P. Mines, Chitra by letter dated 18.6.2000 issued a notice to show cause stating, inter alia, that the land on the basis of which employment was given to them was claimed by said Parwati Devi and the Court has held her entitlement for half share and on that ground why the employment given to him be not cancelled and the amount of compensation be not recovered. 4. The petitioners filed their reply stating, inter alia, that the said Parwati Devi had no concern with the land of the petitioners and that the petitioners have got services in lieu of acquisition of their land and there was no ground for cancellation of employment or recovery of compensation amount paid to them. 5. 4. The petitioners filed their reply stating, inter alia, that the said Parwati Devi had no concern with the land of the petitioners and that the petitioners have got services in lieu of acquisition of their land and there was no ground for cancellation of employment or recovery of compensation amount paid to them. 5. Suddenly, by office order dated 20.6.2001 the petitioner was held guilty of violation of the norms of the company on the ground of institution of the said suit in respect of land in lieu whereof they were given employment and on that charge dismissed the petitioners from service with immediate effect. The petitioners were further directed to refund the total compensation amount, which was paid to them (An-nexures 4 and 4/1). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in a case based on almost similar facts situation, one Yugal Rajak had approached this Court in WP (S) No. 3387 of 2001, 2005 (3) JCR 25 (Jhr). The writ petition was allowed by order dated 17.3.2005 and the order awarding punishment of dismissal and realization of compensation amount was quashed. The said order was challenged by the Management-respondents in LPA No. 383 of 2005 in which the said order of the learned single Judge was upheld and the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. The said Yugal Rajak was re-appointed and he is still in service, It has been submitted that this case is squarely covered by the said decision of this Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and its authorities fairly admitted the said position and has stated that the petitioners have belatedly approached this Court after six years and on that ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel, however, conceded that the claim of the petitioners is squarely covered by the decision in Yugal Rajak case, WP(S) No. 3387 of 2001: See 2005 (3) JCR 25 (Jhr). 8. In view of the said admitted position, the impugned orders both dated 20.6.2001 (Annexures 4 and 4/1) are held arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable as also hit by the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of the legitimacy of the petitioners claim, this writ petition cannot be dismissed only on the ground of delay in approaching this Court. 9. In view of the legitimacy of the petitioners claim, this writ petition cannot be dismissed only on the ground of delay in approaching this Court. More so, when the impugned orders are per se illegal, vitiated and null and void and refusal of the petitioners prayer would allow, the said illegal orders to operate in hostility, in the society ruled by law. The impugned orders, contained in Annexures-4 and 4/1 are, hereby quashed. This writ petition is allowed. 10. Since the petitioners have been prevented from discharging their duties on the basis of the impugned illegal orders, they are entitled to be reinstated with back wages and all consequential benefits. 10. The respondents are, accordingly, directed to allow the petitioners to resume their duties forthwith and to make payment of consequential benefits within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.