Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 424 (JHR)

Sunil Kumar Sen v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited

2018-02-19

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - Heard Mr. M.B.Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-B.C.C.L. 2. Challenging the letter no.1922 dated 22/23.12.2006 at Annexure- 4 to the writ petition issued by the Area Personnel Manager, by which the petitioner has been asked to abstain from rendering duty, the petitioenr has filed this writ petition with the prayer for quashing the same and to direct the respondents to release the entire salary upto 30.04.2007 along with gratuity as admissible under law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the year 1962, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Stationery In-charge and at the time of his appointment he was an appearing candidate of matriculation examintion and as per matriculation certificate, his date of birth was 05.04.1947 and in his service excerpt the same date of birth was recorded. It is submitted that the respondent-Dy.Chief Personnel Manager, vide his letter dated 09.10.2006 at Annexure - 3, intimated the petitioner that he would be superannuating with effect from 30.04.2007 and thereafter the Area Personnel Manager, vide letter no.1922 dated 22/23.12.2006 at Annexure -4, stopped the petitioner from rendering duties with immediate effect on the ground that as no person can be inducted in the Coal Mines as per the provisions of the the Mines Act, the petitioner, having attained the age of 18 years, was appointed on 16.04.1962 and as such, he weould be superannuating on 16.04.2004 and thus, the petitioner was forcefully superannated due to the said reason, vide Annexure -4. 4. It is submitted that being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner filed representations on 29.12.2006 and 10.02.2009, vide Annexure - 5 & 6 respectively, over which the respondents turned a deaf ear and thus, petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned order, vide Annexure - 4 to the writ petition, because of the fact that the petitioner was supposed to superannuate on 30.04.2007 but he has been prematurely superannuated, which is not sustainable in law. 5. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that the ground taken by the respondents that no person below the age of 18 years can be employed in coal mines was the subject-matter before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Fatik Chandra Dutta vs. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. reported in [ 2005 (1) JLJR 426 ] . Learned counsel, referring the decision rendered in the aforesaid case, submitted that as there was no restriction for employment of a person below the age of 18 years and there was no dispute as to the date of birth, the petitioner should have continued in service till he attained the age of 60 years on 30.04.2007 but he has been forcefully superannuated four months prior to the actual date of superannuation, therefore he is entitled to salary from January, 2007 to April, 2007. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. V.K.Dubey, has submitted that keeping in the view the provision of the Mines Act that no person below the age of 18 years can be employed in coal mines and taking the age of the petitioner to be 18 years at the time of entry into service, he was superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years on 16.04.2004, though he had worked upto December, 2006 and as such, he is not entitled to any relief. 7. Mr. V.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent-B.C.C.L, submits that apart from the statements made in the counter-affidavit, the writ petitioner has committed a long delay in approaching this Court and on this ground, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed. He further submits that if the relief sought for by the petitioner is allowed, it will open flood-gate for the litigants. 8. It has been held by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case of Fatik Chandra Dutta that the respondents cannot force the petitioner to retire prior to attaining the age of suerannuation, i.e. 60 yars, as prescribed under the Standing Order. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of the materials available on record and considering the decision rendered in the case of Fatik Chandra Dutta vs. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of the materials available on record and considering the decision rendered in the case of Fatik Chandra Dutta vs. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. , I am of the considered view that there is no legal justification in issuing Annexure -4 as in the service except and in all other documents, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 05.04.1947 and as such, the petitioner ought to have continued in service upto 30.04.2007 but for the reasons best known to the respondents, the impugned order dated 22/23.12.2006 at Annexure -4 was issued directing the petitioner to superannuate with immediate effect and the respondents cannot force the petitioner to superannuate prior to attaining the age of superannuation, i.e 60 years, as prescribed under the Standing Order. Thus, the impugned order dated 22/23.12.2006 at Annexure -4 is set aside and quashed. Since the petitioner would have attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2007, he is entitled to get salary for the period from 01.01.2007 to 30.04.2007. 10. With the aforesaid directioin, this writ petition is allowed.