The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 284 of 2022 Shashi Kumar, aged about 42 years, son of Late Rameshwar Sao, resident of Village Charhi, P.O. & P.S. Charhi, District Hazaribagh ... Appellant Versus 1. Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director having its office at P.O. Darbhanga House, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 2. Director Personnel, CCL, P.O. Darbhanga House, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 3. General Manager (P & IR), CCL, P.O. Darbhanga House, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 4. The Personnel Manager (P/ Estb, CCL, P.O. Darbhanga House, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 5. The Chief General Manager (H), CCL, P.O. & P.S. Charhi, District Hazaribagh 6. The Staff Officer (P), CCL, P.O. & P.S. Charhi, District Hazaribagh 7. The Project Officer, Kedla Underground Project, CCL, P.O. Kedla, P.S. Mandu, District Hazaribagh (now Ramgarh) 8. Senior Personnel Officer, Kedla Underground Project, CCL, P.O. Kedla, P.S. Mandu, Hazaribagh (now Ramgarh) --- … Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Appellant For the Respondents/CCL Order No. 07 : Mr. Abhishek Shrivastava, Advocate : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate --- Dated 13th August, 2024 Heard Mr. Abhishek Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents CCL. This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4951 of 2009, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioner had been dismissed. The writ petition was filed by Rameshwar Sao and due to his death during
Decision
the pendency of the writ petition, he has been substituted by Shashi Kumar who had pursued the writ petition as well as preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. The original writ petitioner, namely, Rameshwar Sao was working as an attendance clerk at Kedla Underground Project, Hazaribag, CCL and on 29.01.1990, he had submitted an application to his superior authority that for contesting the Page-1 State Assembly Election, he will remain absent from his duty for the next one month. The letter dated 29.01.1990 was accepted and treated as a resignation letter and vide letter No. 90 dated 05.02.1990 issued by the General Manager (H), CCL, Hazaribag information was given to the petitioner about acceptance of his resignation with effect from 30.01.1990. It has been stated that due to some unavoidable circumstance the writ petitioner could not contest election and on 09.02.1990 he had submitted an application before the concerned authority with a request to give him joining to the post of Attendance Clerk at Kedla Underground Project. The writ petitioner for redressal of his grievance, had also brought to their notice that similarly situated persons were allowed to join duty even after acceptance of their resignation. It has been stated vide letter No. 3848 dated 08.11.2003, the Staff Officer (P)H, Charhi writ to the Project Officer, Kedla Underground Project with request to look into the matter regarding reinstatement of the petitioner but the same was rejected and it was informed to the petitioner vide letter No. 5589 dated 05.01.2004. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was rejected vide letter No. 3498 dated 06.08.2008. The petitioner thereafter had preferred the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4951 of 2009 for a direction upon the respondents for reinstatement in service with effect from 31.01.1990 with full back wages after quashing the letter No. PD/MP/Estt/03/7460 dated 31.10.2003 along with the letter No. 3848 dated 08.11.2003 and letter No. 5589 dated 05.01.2004. The dismissal of the writ application has constrained the petitioner to prefer the present Letters Patent Appeal. Mr. Abhishek Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the original writ petitioner has been discriminated against as similarly situated employees, namely, Madhu Sudan Prasad Singh, Kumar Mahesh Singh and Chandra Prakash Choudhary, who all had contested election after tendering their resignation, were reinstated in service. It has been stated that it is a common practice in the respondent company for reinstatement of an employee even after his resignation is accepted and in fact the case of the original writ petitioner stands on a higher pedestal as he had not even contested the election being denied a ticket by the concerned political party for Mandu Assembly Constituency. Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent CCL has submitted that once the resignation submitted by an employee is accepted the relationship between the employee and employer ceases to exist and merely Page-2 because some of employees named by the petitioner have been reinstated, the same were under difference circumstances not equitable to the case of the petitioner. The leave application of the original writ petitioner dated 29.01.1990 reveals about the original writ petitioner contesting the impending Assembly Election from Mandu and he had expressed his desire to resign from his job once he is elected. The respondent CCL on the basis of assertion made in the letter dated 29.01.1990 had rightly considered the same as a resignation letter and had accordingly accepted the resignation of the original writ petitioner. Subsequently there has been a paradigm shift in the stance of the original writ petitioner as being denied a ticket he did not contest the election and therefore, according to him his ordeal started and his effort to be reinstated in service failed. Mr. Abhishek Shrivastava in course of his submission has referred to a decision taken on 17.01.1995 specifying the condition under which the reinstatement of an employee contesting the election have been laid down and according to him the original writ petitioner had fulfilled all the necessary criteria. The said decision is not mandatory in nature and the discretion lies with the management to take a final decision. The decision of the management in the case of Madhusudan Prasad Singh who resigned, lost the election he had contested and was reinstated in service was on account of shortage of technical staff. The discretion imposed upon the management was wisely exercised. The same matrix cannot be applied in the case of the original writ petitioner simply on account of the fact that he was at the time of resignation not holding any specialised or technical post as he was merely an Attendance Clerk in Kedla washery. The learned Single Judge has rightly considered the entire aspects of the case while dismissing the writ application. We do not find any reason to conclude otherwise and consequently we dismiss this appeal. MK (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) Page-3