Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 884 (JHR)

Barti Kamin v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited

2009-06-26

D.K.SINHA, M.Y.EQBAL

body2009
JUDGMENT Heard the Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. We dispose of this appeal at the admission stage. This appealis directed against the judgment and order dated 28.04.2009 passed in W.P.(S)No.27 of 2007 whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the Respondent-Management to pay a cost of Rs.20,000/-for making wrong and incorrect statement in the affidavit. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The Appellant-Barti Kamin was a female workman under the Respondent-B.C.C.L. In the year 2000 the Respondent floated a scheme i.e. Voluntarily Retirement Scheme ( Female) under which any female workman could have tendered her resignation in lieu of appointment of her son but one of the conditions was that such female workman must not attained the age of 55 years. Under the aforesaid scheme of 2000, the appellant filed application in 2000 and tendered her resignation in order to get employment of her son. When no decision was taken, the appellant moved this Court in W.P.(S)No.3571 of 2001 whereby this Court in terms of the order dated 08.08.2001 disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the case of the appellant and to take a decision. Again the appellant moved this Court in W.P.(S)No.303 of 2002 for a direction upon the respondents to take a decision but the said writ petition was dismissed accepting the stand taken by the Respondents that in 2000 the appellant crossed the age of 55 years as her date of birth was 17.10.1945. The appellant then filed L.P.A.No.146 of 2002 which also stood dismissed. However, the appellant again filed a fresh writ petition being W.P.(S)No.27 of 2007 and it was brought to the notice of this Court that her date of birth is 12.07.1948 which was entered in all the service records and therefore she did not cross 55 years of age in 2000 rather he was only 52 years of age. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that the Respondents in the earlier writ petition have made incorrect and wrong statement in the affidavit that her date of birth was 17.10.1945 and she crossed the age of 55 years in 2000. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that the Respondents in the earlier writ petition have made incorrect and wrong statement in the affidavit that her date of birth was 17.10.1945 and she crossed the age of 55 years in 2000. The facts stated in the writ petition has been admitted by the Respondents and their Counsel admitted that there was no misrepresentation, fraud or deceit from the side of the Respondents but due to mistake such incorrect statement was made in the affidavit as a result of which the earlier writ petition was dismissed. Taking into consideration these facts and also the fact that because of rejection of the application of the appellant tendering resignation for getting employment to her son she continued in service and attained the age of superannuation the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by awarding a cost of Rs.20,000/-. For better appreciation, the relevant and operative part of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced here-in-below:- “ Shri Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent fairly admits that the mistake did occur on the part of the respondent. The Officer of the respondent company Mr. R.H.Toppo, was directed to appear, is present in the Court. In view of the admission and also in view of the affidavit and the records now filed by the respondents admitting the fact that the service record showed the date of birth of the petitioner as 12.7.1948, the respondent authorities are prima facie guilty of contempt and perjury. The learned counsel for the respondents prays to take a lenient view and also submits that the petitioner has superannuated after attaining the age of 60 years and has also collected the retiral dues. He also submits that the mistake committed was bona fide and not deliberate. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the petitioner has attained superannuation after completing 60 years of service and has collected retiral dues there is no point to initiate contempt proceedings and or perjury proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C. at this stage. However, it will be in the interest of justice to direct the respondent Management to pay a cost of Rs.20,000/-to the petitioner since he suffered at the hands of the respondents authority for making false statement on oath. However, it will be in the interest of justice to direct the respondent Management to pay a cost of Rs.20,000/-to the petitioner since he suffered at the hands of the respondents authority for making false statement on oath. It is also directed that if the retiral dues has not been released the same should be released within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction.” Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned Counsel for the Respondents reiterated his submission before us that it was because of the mistake such incorrect affidavit was filed by the Respondent in the earlier writ petition which resulted in dismissal of the said writ petition. 3. The admitted position is that because of the incorrect and false affidavit filed by the Respondents in the earlier writ petition, the appellant was deprived of her valuable right under the scheme to tender her resignation and to get employment of her son. Learned Single Judge expressed that the appellant attained the age of superannuation and there is no point to initiate contempt proceedings and or perjury proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C. In the background of these facts, we are of the view that a cost of Rs. 20,000/-imposed by the learned Single Judge will not meet the ends of justice rather the appellant must be compensated adequately for the alleged mistake committed by the Respondents and thereby the right of the appellant to get her son in employment has been taken away. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the judgment and hold that instead of payment of cost the appellant shall be compensated by payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/-which will meet the ends of justice.