The High Court · 2023
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 715 of 2019 1. Devendra Kumar Singh, age about 68 years, son of late Mita Singh, resident of Quarter No. D.T. 2075, P.O. and P.S. -Dhurwa, Ranchi 2. C.M.P. Sinha, age about 70 years, son of Late Girdhari Prasad, resident of Quarter No. A/7 CTI Colony, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. Budhdeo Ram, age about 69 years, son of Late Runju Ram, resident of village-Maushibari, Jagarnathpur, P.O. and P.S- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 4. Dhirendra Prasad Singh, age about 70 years, son of late Dineshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Quarter No. A 5 CTI Colony, P.O. and P.S-Dhurwa, District- Petitioners Ranchi. … ... Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand
Legal Reasoning
2. Shri Abhijit Ghosh, Chairman Cum Managing Director, M/s Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Dhurwa, Office at-HEC Ltd. Head Quarter, Plant Plaza Road, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. … ... Opp. Parties With C.M.P. No. 581 of 2023 Dhirendra Prasad Singh, S/o Late Dineshwar Prasad Singh, aged about 74 years, Resident of Qr. No. – A-5, (C.T.I.) Colony, P.O.+P.S. Dhurwa, Dist.- … Petitioner Ranchi (Jharkhand) … Versus 1. Shri Abhijit Ghosh, Chriaman cum Managing Director, Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. + P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi (Jharkhand) office at HEC Hqrs Plant Plaza Road, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. The Registrar General, Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, New High Court Building at Dhurwa, Ranchi-4, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi (Jharkhand) 3. State of Jharkhand --------------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ... … Opp. Parties For the Petitioners For the State For the Opp. Party-H.E.C. : Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, Advocate : Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, AC to GA-V : Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate --------------- Order No. 09 /Dated: 6th September 2023 C.M.P. No. 581 of 2023 This application has been filed for modification of the order dated 11th April 2019 passed in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 618 of 2017. 2 Cont. Case (Civil) No. 715 of 2019 With C.M.P. No. 581 of 2023 2. By an order dated 11th April 2019, the following direction was issued by this Court: “In view of such submission, we direct the entire sum payable to be deposited with the office of the Registrar General within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The said sum shall, in turn, be deposited in an interest bearing fixed deposit account of a nationalized bank. The said deposit shall be accompanied by a tabular statement showing the names of the individual workmen and the manner in which the sum has been computed. Thereafter, upon verification of the identity of the each recipient, the amount shall be disbursed by the Registrar General. In the event any of the workmen has passed away, then the legal heirs of such deceased workman shall produce succession certificate or any other equivalent proof of entitlement for receiving the said sum before the Registrar General of this Court. The sum due on account of such deceased workman shall be disbursed by the Registrar General only upon being satisfied about such claimant’s entitlement to receive such sum. In case of any difficulty, the Registrar General shall be at liberty to seek appropriate direction from this Court.” 3. Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant states that since the deposit was made in an interest bearing account with the nationalized Bank the beneficiary workmen are entitled for interest. 4. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the applicant to this extent but what transpires is that the applicant wants either the Bank or the Registrar General of this Court to calculate and apportion amount of interest for each individual beneficiary workman. This definitely is not acceptable. The concerned workmen can obtain the accounts and raise their claim which then can be verified. 5. Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant further states that the workmen who passed away before the order was passed by the Court are required to submit a succession certificate as per the order dated 11th April 2019 but this stipulation is causing great hardship to the dependents of the deceased workmen. 6. We are not inclined to accept this submission. This is well settled in law that in the process of law hardship may cause to some. Without having a succession certificate or “any other proof” thereof, as indicated in the order dated 11th April 2019, the dependent(s) of a deceased employee cannot be given money due to the deceased employee. 7. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this application and, accordingly, C.M.P. No. 581 of 2023 is dismissed with liberty to the beneficiary employees for taking appropriate and necessary steps in the matter. 3 Cont. Case (Civil) No. 715 of 2019 With C.M.P. No. 581 of 2023 Cont. Case (Civil) No. 715 of 2019 8. The grievance of the petitioners is that the order passed in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 618 of 2017 has been complied only in part inasmuch as amount due to only 27 employees was deposited. 9. Mr. Sushant Kumar, the learned counsel for the H.E.C. submits that 15 employees have retained the official quarter which were allotted to them during currency of their service. As regards other two employees, it is stated that they were on the rolls of the Company at the time when the order dated 11th April 2019 was passed. These statements are not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the H.E.C. submits that the amount payable to the remaining employees shall be calculated and paid, provided they vacate the house/flat occupied by them. 10. Accordingly, it is directed that the amount payable to the workmen shall be disbursed as per the order dated 11th April 2019 and the deposit in respect to the remaining 17 employees must be made within 30 days from today. The premises occupied by the ex-employees or their dependents shall be vacated within 90 days except those whose legal right is admitted by the H.E.C and only upon vacating the quarters the remaining 19 ex-employees or their
Decision
dependent(s) or nominee(s) shall be paid sums due to them. 11. Accordingly, this Contempt petition is disposed of. 12. Consequently, I.A. No. 2911 of 2022 and I.A. No. 3992 of 2022 in Cont. Case (Civil) No. 715 of 2019 and I.A. No. 6703 of 2023 in C.M.P. No. 581 of 2023 are disposed of. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit/Mukul