Ranjan Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. R. C. Khatri, Advocate : Mr. Abhay Prakash, J.C. to G.A. --- 2/22.07.2013 Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for payment of salary and other service benefits.

The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant by order dated 7.6.1988. The description of the posting of the petitioner has been given in the writ petition. It appears that the petitioner approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1702 of 1999 (R) with a prayer for payment, for the period the petitioner and others actually worked. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 13.4.2000 with a liberty to the petitioner to file representation and a direction to the respondents for deciding the representation of the petitioner. Since the salary etc. as claimed by the petitioner was not granted to the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

From a reading of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has willfully suppressed the fact that his service was terminated long back. It is indicated in the order passed by this Court in its order dated 13.4.2000 itself. -2-

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of a subsequent decision, the service of the petitioner has been terminated. However, no such statement has been made in the writ petition and apparently such statement is false.

In “Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. SBI” reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under;

33. “It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.”

In “K.D. Sharma Vs. SAIL” reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under;

34. “The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.”

In “Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. v. Commr. (Admn.)” reported in (2010) 4 SCC 728 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under; -3-

23. “This Court and different High Courts have repeatedly invoked and applied the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be heard on the merits of his grievance.......”

In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence of this Court and therefore, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. R. Shekhar Cp 2 (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)