Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 659 (JHR)

Shyam Lal v. Central Coalfield Limited

2010-06-23

RAKESH RANJAN PRASAD

body2010
JUDGMENT : R.R. Prasad, J. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner took employment in the year 1978 in Central Coalfield Limited under the voluntary retirement scheme on representing that he is the son of Sahetar Satnami, who had taken retirement under the aforesaid scheme but, in fact, the petitioner happens to be the son-in-law of Sahetar Satnami. Since the petitioner had taken employment by giving false declaration that he is the son of Sahetar Satnami, memo of charge was served upon him on 16.2.2009. Explanation to the charge aforesaid was submitted wherein it was stated that Sahetar Satnami is his father-in-law, who, after the death of the father of the petitioner, had looked after him and on attaining the age of majority, he did marry with the daughter of Sahetar Satnami. Under that situation, the petitioner at the wish of his father-in-law was appointed. Thereupon the matter was taken up for enquiry in which it was found that the petitioner got employment by giving false declaration that Sahetar Satnami is his father whereas the said Sahetar Satnami has a son, namely, Shyamlal Banjare, who is also under the employment of Central Coalfield Limited and as such, under the scheme of voluntary retirement, he was not entitled to get employment. Thus, the enquiry officer found that the charges have been fully proved. Thereupon, the disciplinary authority, vide order as contained in Memo No. 642-57 dated 15.3.2010 (Annexure 3) passed an order of dismissal of the petitioner, Clerk Grade II/MTK, Saunda 'D' Colliery. The said order of dismissal has been challenged to be bad in this writ application. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that voluntary retirement scheme was introduced in the year 1978 in the Central Coalfield Limited with an object to provide opportunities to those workers who had crossed the age of 45 years but below 58 years to voluntary retire from service and provide employment to one of their relatives in their place. The said scheme further clarifies that the person gets retired under the said scheme, then his son and if there is no son, then son-in-law is entitled to get employment. 4. The said scheme further clarifies that the person gets retired under the said scheme, then his son and if there is no son, then son-in-law is entitled to get employment. 4. In this respect, leaned counsel further submits that conjunction 'or' does stipulate that the employment can be given either to son or son-in-law and therefore, keeping in view the object of this scheme, the son-in-law would also be entitled to get employment. In the present case stand of the petitioner gets strengthened by the fact the petitioner was brought up right from the beginning of the childhood and married to the daughter of the employee who took voluntary retirement but neither the disciplinary authority nor the enquiry officer did consider the case of the petitioner in that light and, therefore, the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority is quite bad. 5. Keeping in view the relevant provision of the scheme which is being noted below, I do not find any merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The said provision reads as follows: They should have a son, if there is no son, a son-in-law or if there is no son-in-law, son of real brother who has completed his 18th years and is not more than 25 years of age. 6. There does not appear to be any ambiguity in the aforesaid clause of the scheme which clearly stipulates that if the employee, who took voluntary retirement under the scheme, does have a son, employment is to be given to the son. It further stipulates that if the employee does not have son, then son-in-law is also entitled to get employment. 7. Thus, the aforesaid provision never stipulates that if an employee takes voluntary retirement, then his son or his son-in-law is to be given employment, rather it does stipulate that son-in-law can be given employment only when the employee does not have any son. 8. In the instant case, it is admitted position that the employee Sahetar Satnami does have a son, namely, Shyamlal Banjare, who is also under the employment of Central Coalfield Limited but this petitioner at the time of employment by giving false declaration that he is the son of Sahetar Satnami secured employment and as such his service has been terminated and under these situations, the order of termination never suffers from any illegality. 9. 9. Thus, I do not find any merit in this application. Hence, it is dismissed.