Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1220 (JHR)

Kuldip Chouhan v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited

2018-06-13

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. – In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 12.08.2004 vide Annexure-14 to the writ application pertaining to rejection of the claim of the petitioner which has been passed in W.P.(S) No.973 of 2003 dated 14.05.2004 and further prayer has been made by the petitioner for direction to the respondents for payment of arrears of salary for the period from 08.03.2001 to 20.03.2002 in the scale of Rs.11,500/- per month. 2. The factual aspect in brief is that the petitioner earlier approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.973 of 2003 being aggrieved by the order for nonpayment of the wages vide Annexure-10 to the said writ application and the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a direction by setting aside the order at Annexure-10 and the matter was remitted to the Chairman-cumManaging Director, B.C.C.L, Dhanbad to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, accordingly, the order dated 12.08.2004 has been passed which is impugned in this writ application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner left with no other alternative has knocked the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. 3. Ms. Shatakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent in Annexure-14 is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order has been passed on frivolous and flimsy grounds without appreciating the material facts. 4. Controverting the averment made in the writ application, a counteraffidavit has been filed by the respondent reiterating the impugned order passed in the writ application. In the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that by an office order dated 01.06.2001 (Annexure-5), the petitioner was posted under the Project Officer, Nichitpur colliery under Sijua Area of M/s B.C.C.L. It has further been stated that the petitioner has submitted his joining report on 08.03.2001 (Annexure-4) and remained absent upto 11.06.2001. He did not send any information regarding his absence to the General Manager, Sijua Area. He received the posting order dated 01.06.2001 only on 12.06.2001 (Annexure-5) and reported for duty on the same day i.e. 12.06.2001 before the Project Officer, Nichitpur Colliery. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to remain absent. He did not send any information regarding his absence to the General Manager, Sijua Area. He received the posting order dated 01.06.2001 only on 12.06.2001 (Annexure-5) and reported for duty on the same day i.e. 12.06.2001 before the Project Officer, Nichitpur Colliery. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to remain absent. Since, the petitioner continued to remain absent without any information and explanation, the respondent has passed a reasoned order after giving a thoughtful consideration to all the facts and circumstances. 5. Mr. Nikhil Mehta, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Anup Kr. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents-BCCL has assiduously submitted that in deference to direction passed in W.P.(S) No.973 of 2003 a reasoned order has been passed which does not warrant any interference by this Hon''ble Court. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the facts which has been stated in the counter-affidavit indicates that the petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly so he is not entitled to the salary for the period in question. 6. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that there is no impropriety or illegality in passing the order dated 12.08.2004 vide Annexure-14 to the writ application so as to call for any interference by this Court. 7. Viewed thus, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.