Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 101 (JHR)

Pratima Devi v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board

2010-01-19

D.N.PATEL

body2010
Order Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that an account payee cheque bearing Cheque No. 015165 dated 18th January, 2010 for an amount of Rs.16,984.53 paise has been tendered to learned counsel for the present petitioner towards the medical expenses, incurred by the present petitioner. Learned counsel has received the said cheque in the Court for its onwards transmission to the present petitioner and has given receipt in lieu thereof. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that still this writ petition survives so far as the compensation for imputation of left arm from elbow of the husband of the petitioner as well as for grant of benefits on promotion to the post of Junior Lineman are concerned, as the husband of the present petitioner had already joined the said post of Junior Lineman. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a detailed order has been passed at Annexure-8 to the memo of petition by the General Manager-cum Chief Engineer, Electric Supply Area, Dhanbad, dated 30th March, 2005. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order at Annexure-8 to the memo of petition, passed by the respondent, is thoroughly do hors the facts and law. The grievance of the present petitioner, so far as medical bill is concerned, is already over, as the cheque has already been received, but, so far as the promotion to the post of Junior Lineman is concerned, which the husband of the petitioner had already joined and worked on the said post, could not have been withdrawn by the respondents, as no notice was ever given to the husband of the present petitioner before withdrawal of the said promotion given to the husband of the present petitioner by the respondents and no opportunity of being heard was given to the husband of the present petitioner, otherwise, the husband of the present petitioner would have pointed out that he was fit and competent to be appointed as a Junior Lineman and can continue to work as a Junior Lineman, but, never such opportunity was given by the respondents to the husband of the present petitioner before withdrawal of the promotion, already granted to the husband of the present petitioner. The promotion was granted to the husband of the present petitioner with effect from 29th October, 1997 and the husband of the petitioner was reverted back to the post of Skilled Khalashi on 17th January, 1998 vide order at Annexure-9 to the memo of amendment petition (I.A. No. 4046 of 2009). In the said order at Annexure-8, which has been annexed with I.A. No. 4046 of 2009, no reasons have been assigned, while reverting the husband of the present petitioner and abruptly, the conclusion "has been arrived at that the petitioner's husband is not fit to work on the said post. This conclusion has not been proved at all, on the basis of any fact and, therefore, the said order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded for a fresh decision by the concerned respondent authority. 5. So far as compensation amount is concerned, nothing has been awarded towards the compensation, though the left arm from elbow of the husband of the present petitioner was to be imputed because of electrocution, when he was in the employment and though the accident has taken place during the course of employment and, therefore also the matter requires to be remanded for a fresh decision for quantification of the amount of compensation. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case:- (i) It appears that the husband of the present petitioner was working as Skilled Khalashi with the respondents and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Junior Lineman with effect from 29th October, 1997. This order of promotion has been withdrawn vide order at Annexure-9 dated 17th January, 1998, on the ground that the petitioner's husband was not fit to work on the said post. No notice was ever given to the husband of the present petitioner nor any opportunity of being heard was ever given to the husband of the present petitioner; (ii) It appears that the husband of the present petitioner met with an accident on 8th February, 1996, while on duty, at 33/11 KW Power Sub-Station, Tisri and because of electrocution, his left arm from elbow was required to be imputed and, therefore, the petitioner's husband asked for compensation from the respondents. As the same was not paid, a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 2690 of 2002 was instituted; which was decided vide order dated 16th May, 2004, whereby, a direction was given to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electric Supply Area, Dhanbad, to consider the claims of the petitioner, upon representation to be preferred by the petitioner's husband, within a period of three weeks. The said order is at Annexure-7 to the memo of petition. Regarding the first prayer reflected in the first paragraph about the prayer of compensation, though there is a clear direction by this Court, looking to the decision at Annexure-8 dated 30th March, 2005 by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, it appears that no decision has been given on the prayer for compensation, to be paid to the petitioner. It has been observed in the impugned order at Annexure-8 that the concerned respondent is directed to expedite the procedure to sanction and pay compensation to the petitioner's husband, as per the provisions, made under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Till today, no such decision has been taken and no compensation has been paid for imputation of the left arm from elbow of the husband of the present petitioner, because of electrocution, when her husband was on duty at the aforesaid Sub-Station. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electricity Supply Area, Dhanbad, was directed to decide the lump sum compensation, but no such decision has been taken by him, as per Annexure-8 to the memo of petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an office order no. 1119 dated 25th September, 2006, wherein, lump sum amount of compensation has been reflected. Either this office order or by applying general principles, the said officer ought to have decided the compensation, to be paid to the husband of the petitioner, but, no such decision, as per Annexure-B, has been taken for compensation, to be paid to the husband of the petitioner. (iii) Likewise, it appears that with0rawal of the promotion order, which was already given to the husband of the present petitioner dated 29th October, 1997, vide order dated 17th January, 1998 (Annexure-9 to the memo of interlocutory application) is also without any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner's husband. No reasons have been given in the order at Annexure-9 to the memo of interlocutory application. Thus, the order at Annexure-9 is thoroughly a non-speaking order. No reasons have been given in the order at Annexure-9 to the memo of interlocutory application. Thus, the order at Annexure-9 is thoroughly a non-speaking order. Reasons cannot be supplied later on. But, looking to the order at Annexure-B upon the representation, it appears that now a reason has been given that the husband of the petitioner was not fit to do the work on the promoted post and, therefore, the promotion was withdrawn. This conclusion cannot be arrived at unilaterally or arbitrarily, without giving any notice and without giving, at least, an opportunity of being heard to the husband of the petitioner. 7. I, therefore, quash and set aside the order, passed by the concerned respondent authority dated 17th January, 1998 at Annexure-9 to the memo of interlocutory application and I hereby direct the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electric Supply Area, Dhanbad, to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, rules, regulations, policies and the Government enforceable orders, for deciding now the left out two claims of the present petitioner: (a) for compensation to be paid by the respondents to the present petitioner's husband, who met with an accident on 8th February, 1996, while on duty; and (b) to consider the case of the present petitioner's husband for promotional post. 8. The order at Annexure-8, which is dated 30th March, 2005 is also hereby quashed and set aside, so that a fresh decision may be taken. Likewise, order at Annexure-9 to the memo of interlocutory application dated 17th January, 1998 is also quashed and set aside, as the reversion was made without giving any notice or without giving any opportunity of being heard. The respondents are at liberty to take decision, in accordance with law. Thus, this writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of. The decision will be taken by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electric Supply Area, Dhanbad, afresh within "a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order of this Court, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to her representative.