The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1144 of 2021 --------- Ashish Kumar Tiwary, S/o Late Nand Kishore Tiwary, R/o Digwadih No. 10, Opposite Gurudwara, Post Jealgora, Dhanbad, P.O.- Jealgora, P.S.- Jorapokhar & District- Dhanbad Versus ... … Petitioner 1. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through its Chairman-cum- 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Managing Director, having its office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O., P.S.- Saraidhela & District- Dhanbad The Director Personnel, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., having its office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O., P.S.- Saraidhela & District- Dhanbad The General Manager (P&IR), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., having its office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O., P.S.- Saraidhela & District- Dhanbad The General Manager, Lodna Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., having its office at P.O.- Bhaga, P.S.- Jharia & District- Dhanbad The Deputy Manager (Personnel), Lodna Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., having its office at P.O.- Bhaga, P.S.- Jharia & District- Dhanbad The Area Personnel Manager, Lodna Area, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., having its office at P.O.- Bhaga, P.S.- Jharia & District- Dhanbad The Project Officer, Jealgora Colliery, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., having its office at P.O.- Jealgora, P.S.- Jorapokhar & District- Dhanbad ... … Respondents ---------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocate --------- 05/23.08.2023 Heard Ms. Tanya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the --------- respondent-BCCL. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned letter no. chlhlh,y @yks0 {ks0@ egk0(cid:231)0@ dk0fo0@2020/352 dated 11.12.2020, whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for reissuance of the appointment letter has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondent-authorities to reissue the letter of appointment to the petitioner in an appropriate post along with all consequential benefits from the actual date of appointment. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of the father of the petitioner having -2- died while in service the petitioner had made an application for compassionate appointment and the same was considered and the petitioner was issued an employment letter in Category-I but the said employment letter was not served upon the petitioner. It has been submitted that even the General Manager (P&IR) had recommended the case of the petitioner for being reissued an appointment letter. Learned counsel submits that repeatedly the petitioner had approached the concerned authorities but the said employment letter was kept under wraps and was never served upon the petitioner and, therefore, in such circumstances the impugned letter dated 11.12.2020 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BCCL has submitted that an appointment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner and the same was also duly served upon him as would be evident from his representation. Learned counsel has further submitted that after 10 years after the issuance of the appointment letter the question of employment has once upon being raked up by the petitioner. It has been submitted that in fact the petitioner is an MBA Degree holder and he was not interested to serve the company as a Category-I employee which in fact was the cause for not following the directives as enumerated in the appointment letter. The factual aspects of the case reveal that the father of the petitioner was employed at Jealgora Colliery as a Senior Security Inspector who died in harness on 08.01.2009. The mother of the petitioner vide letter dated 09.05.2009 had requested for compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Since the eligibility and the other criteria were fulfilled by the petitioner, he was issued an appointment letter with a direction to join for duty within seven days from the date of issuance of the said letter. In the appointment letter so issued the petitioner was appointed to the post of General Mazdoor (UG) subject to regularization on successful completion of six months as a Trainee (UG) on initial basic wage for Category-I (General -3- Mazdoor). The petitioner had represented the authorities and even the Minister of Coal which resulted in reconsideration in the case of the petitioner and ultimately vide letter dated 11.12.2020 the prayer of the petitioner for reissuance of an appointment letter was rejected. The main plank of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was never aware about the appointment letter having been issued to him as the said appointment letter was never received by him and, therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioner had represented the concerned authorities and even the General Manager (P&IR) had also recommended the case of the petitioner for being reissued a fresh appointment letter. It therefore, appears that the petitioner has denied that he had ever received the appointment letter issued by the concerned authorities. However, a perusal of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 10.06.2020 reveals that after the petitioner was issued an appointment letter, he had come to know about the same within 4 to 5 months from the date of such issuance though the petitioner claims that no official information was provided to him. Even in the counter affidavit specific statement has been made supported by documentary evidence about the petitioner being in receipt of the appointment letter. The representation dated 10.06.2020 has been brought on record by the petitioner himself and if at all the petitioner was aware about the issuance of an appointment letter in his favour and even if the same was not served upon him the petitioner could have approached the concerned authority or the court for redressal of his grievance but it appears that the petitioner has woke up from his slumber after almost a decade while pursuing his claim for compassionate appointment. So far as the recommendation made by the General Manager (P&IR) is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that he is not the competent authority. Even it is assumed that the General Manager (P&IR) was a competent authority the same was merely a recommendation which ultimately resulted in issuance of the -4- impugned letter dated 11.12.2020. The latches and delay on the part of the petitioner is manifest from the record itself as though the appointment letter was issued in the year 2010 and the petitioner though being aware about the same as per his own representation dated 10.06.2020 did not make any concerted effort during the intervening period and therefore, acceding to the prayer of the petitioner for issuance of a fresh appointment letter after ten years would itself tantamount to an illegality. The impugned letter dated 11.12.2020 has considered all aspects of the matter and by detailed reasoning has rejected such claim of the petitioner. I do not find any error in the impugned letter dated 11.12.2020 and, consequently this writ application stands dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Alok/-