Anil Kumar Ram (aged about 34 years) son of late Metho Dhari …. … v. 1. B.C.C.L, Koyla Bhwan, Dhanbad, represented Director
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.298 of 2022 ------ Anil Kumar Ram (aged about 34 years) son of late Metho Dhari …. …. Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. B.C.C.L, Koyla Bhwan, Dhanbad, represented Director (Pesonnel), PO+PS+ District-Dhanbad through the 2. The Managing Director, B.C.C.L., Koyla Bhwan, Dhanbad, PO+PS+District-Dhanbad 3. The Project Officer, Kustore Colliery, B.C.C.L., Dhanbad, PO+PS+District-Dhanbad .... .... Respondents/ Respondents 4. Prabhat Kumar 5. Dileep Kumar Ram 6. Pradeep Kumar Ram .... .... Performa Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------ For the Appellant For the Resp.-B.C.C.L : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate : Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Advocate : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Pratyush, Advocate ------ 10/Dated: 13.05.2024 I.A. No.4446 of 2024 1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 113 days in preferring the instant Letters Patent Appeal 2. Heard. 3. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause by taking the ground of Pandemic Covid-19 as under paragraph-2 to the instant 1 LPA No.298/2022 application and the Hon’ble Apex Court has also taken care of the aforesaid issue in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the Covid-19 pandemic has passed general order to waive out the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 said to be not considered for the purpose of counting the period of limitation. 4. Further, the ground of financial crunch and the ground of penury have also been taken causing the delay in filing the instant appeal. 5. We, after considering the reason assigned in the interlocutory application and taking into consideration the interpretation of the sufficient cause, as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj & Anr. Vrs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, [(2013) 14 SCC 81], are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal has sufficiently been explained. 6. Accordingly, I.A.No.4446 of 2024 is allowed and delay of 113 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.298 of 2022 Prayer 7. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 17.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6493 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, the direction sought for by issuing the Writ of Mandamus for reinstatement of the original petitioner of which she was deprived of by the impersonator, who was convicted in 2 LPA No.298/2022 a criminal case and also seeking a direction to the Form-B register to ensure the payment of her along with full back wages with interest @ 12% with effect from the date when the impersonator’s name was entered in Form-B register of BCCL, has been refused to be interfered
Decision
with by dismissing the writ petition. Facts 8. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which read as under:- 9. It is the case that the writ petition was originally filed by Maina Dharin @ Manwa Dharin wife of Metho Dharin but during pendency of the writ petition, she died and thereafter, legal representative were substituted and now the present appellant being the son of the Maina Dharin is challenging the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. The original petitioner, namely, Maina Dharin @ Manwa Dharin wife of Metho Dharin (now the appellant namely Anil Kumar Ram ) was initially working as casual worker in Kustore Colliery from 1966 to 1975 till she was stopped from working by other workman. In the year 1979 those casual workmen were reappointed but since her son died due to small pox and so she had gone to her home. On coming back she presented her required papers for her reinstatement before the competent authority at which she was told that in her place some other Maina Dharin had been reinstated in the service. Therefore the 3 LPA No.298/2022 petitioner submitted her written complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad pointing out the entire facts. Thereafter this fact of impersonation also come to the knowledge of the management of B.C.C.L. Dhanbad and on the basis of the aforesaid facts, F.I.R lodged by the true and real workman namely Maina Dharin. 11. Thereafter, impersonator Maina Dharin @ Manwa Dharin wife of late Rohit Dhari was convicted by Judicial Magistrate Dhanbad on 29.01.1997 in G.R case number 3745/1986. 12. On the complaint and the F.I.R lodged by the mother of the appellant, namely, Maina Dharin) the departmental enquiry was initiated against the fake Maina Dharin (wife of late Rohit Dhari) and after due consideration fake Maina Dharin was ultimately terminated from the service by the management B.C.C.L, Dhanbad and on considering the entire, facts the office of the D.C Dhanbad requested the General manager, (Mahaprabandhak), Personnel, B.C.C.L Koyla Bhawan Dhanbad, that the appellant/petitioner reinstated and the same may be communicated to the office by letter number 2123, dated 26.09.1991, thereafter fake Maina Dharin raised an industrial dispute in reference case number 40/1991 which was allowed in favor of fake Maina Dharin by order dated 14.12.1994 and subsequently the said award was challenged by the B.C.C.L Dhanbad in C.W.J.C number 1714/1995 in which the appellant's mother late Maina Dharin intervened and claimed herself the genuine and correct person to reinstate in the service which was not disputed by the respondents and 4 LPA No.298/2022 also accepted by this Court, on the other hand, in spite of repeated notice made by this Court, the fake Maina Dharin did not appear before this Court and the writ petition of the B.C.C.L Dhanbad was allowed in favour of B.C.CL. 13. The appellant has filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 193 of IPC in the form of interlocutory application which was also not considered by this Court and the same was rejected. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6493 of 2007 has been filed but the same has also been dismissed, against which, the present appeal. 14. It is evident from the factual aspect that a dispute was agitated by one Manwa Dharin, wife of Rohit Dharin, wherein, reference was made as to:- “whether, the action of the management, Ena Colliery under Kustore Area of BCCL in dismissing Smt. Manwa Dharin, wife of Rohit Dharin vide their letter no.ENA/PD/CS/89/1700 dated 21.10.89 from the services w.e.f. 21.10.89 is justified? If not, to what relief the worker is entitled?” 15. The said reference was answered in favour of Smt. Manwa Dharin, wife of Rohit Dharin. Moreover, tribunal held that the reference may not be taken as going against Manwa Dharin @ Maina Dharin, w/o Metho Dhari, in case, she has already been inducted in service on 5 LPA No.298/2022 the belief of the management that she was the real Manwa Dharin nor the award should be treated as going against her interest in case, the management proposes to employ her if she has not already been employed, because there may be the possibility that there might be two Manwa Dharin, separately identified by the name of their husband. 16. But the grievance of the petitioner, namely, Manwa Dharin, wife of Metho Dharin was raised that one Tilo Bourin W/o Girish Bourin impersonating herself to be the appointee has got appointment which has been brought to the notice of the authority and subsequently, a criminal case was also instituted in which Tilo Bourin W/o Girish Bourin was convicted. 17. It further appears from the factual aspect that being aggrieved with the order of tribunal, one writ petition being CWJC No.1714 of 1995 was filed by the management challenging the award dated 14.12.1994 passed in reference case no.40 of 1991. 18. The ground was taken on behalf of the management that the real person is the Manwa Dharin but one concerned workman, namely, Tilo Bourin, w/o Girish Bourin by impersonation entered into services of the management. When this fact was brought to the notice of the management by Manwa Dharin/complainant, thereafter, by the then Addl. District Magistrate, domestic inquiry was held. In the domestic inquiry, it was found that the concerned workman impersonating the name of Manwa Dharin entered in the service. 6 LPA No.298/2022 19. The Tribunal in the Award held that management failed to establish the charges leveled against the concerned workman. The Tribunal has held in the Award that the Award will not be taken as going against Manwa Dharin @ Maina Dharin in case she has already been inducted into service by the Management or the Award will not be used against the real Manwa Dharin in case the management proposes to employ her if she has not already been employed. 20. The ground has also been taken that the real person, namely, Manwa Dharin intervened in the case by filing intervention application wherein, it has been stated that intervenor is real one and concerned workman has been convicted by the criminal court in G.R. No.3745/86. 21. The learned Single Judge has appreciated the argument advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the judgment of the criminal court whereby the concerned workman has been convicted, the order impugned declaring dismissal of the concerned workman from service has been held to be not sustainable in the eye of law, accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the award passed by the tribunal has been quashed. 22. Subsequent thereto, another writ petition has been filed by the Maina Dharin @ Manwa Dharin, w/o Metho Dhari being W.P.(S) No.2097 of 2005, whereby and whereunder, the respondents have been directed to take final decision in the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. 7 LPA No.298/2022 23. The respondent authorities has passed an order on 21.07.2005, whereby and whereunder, the authorities have come to the conclusion that since the form-B register has been established to be the statutory document and as per the entries made in Form-B register, Manwa Dharin, w/o Rohit Dharin was the employee of Ena Colliery under Kustore Area. Secondly, Tilo Bourin, w/o Girish Bouri, who was impersonating herself as Manwa Dharin, w/o Rohit Dhari was convicted by the criminal court. The lady Maina Dharin @ Manwa Dharin, claiming to be the real Manwa Dharin appears to be the wife of Metho Dhari and not the wife of Rohit Dhari, i.e., with respect of the entries made in Form-B register, hence, the claim of the present petitioner Maina Dharin @ Manwa Dharin, w/o Metho Dhari is not tenable. 24. The writ petition has been filed initially be Maina Dharin @ Manwa Dharin, however, after her death her legal heirs contested the grievance that after conviction of Tilo Bourin, w/o Girish Bouri, Maina Dharin, the mother of the petitioners and sons of late Metho Dhari, were entitled for appointment and in view of the award passed by the learned tribunal, the legal heirs of the Maina Dharin became entitled to get the appointment on the ground of death of Maina Dharin in harness but the same was rejected. 25. The learned Single Judge of this Court, has rejected the writ petition on the grounds that the order dated 21.07.2005, which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit, the prayer 8 LPA No.298/2022 having not been amended by filing appropriate application, cannot be entertained by issuing the writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Argument of the appellant 26. Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that after the judgment of conviction passed against Tilo Bourin, w/o Girish Bouri who was taken appointment by impersonation of the original employee and as such, the moment Tilo Bourin, w/o Girish Bouri was convicted, the mother of the present appellant, namely, Maina Dharin, w/o Metho Dharin has become entitled for reinstatement in service in pursuant to the award passed by the learned tribunal but without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, no consideration has been given with respect to the claim for appointment in the light of the reference having been answered by the learned Industrial Tribunal by taking the ground that in Form-B register, the name of one Manwa Dharin @ Maina Dharin, w/o Rohit Dharin is available. 27. The respondent authority, without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, has rejected the claim of the writ petitioner vide order dated 21.07.2005. The same when challenged before this court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6493 of 2007 on the ground that once the respondents have accepted the fact that Tilo Bourin, w/o Girish Bouri was not the actual employee, rather, she by way of impersonation has got the appointment in the name of Maina Dharin, 9 LPA No.298/2022 w/o Rohit Dhari, while the actual employee is Maina Dharin @ Manwa Dharin, w/o Metho Dhari. 28. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that the impugned order passed by the Administrative authority, as also the learned Single Judge suffer from an error, hence, the present appeal. Argument of the Respondent-BCCL 29. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BCCL has submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant that he was the actual employee, rather, as per the statutory document, i.e., the Form-B, the actual employee was Manwa Dharin, w/o Rohit Dharin, which would be evident from the terms of reference, wherein, the reference has been made to the effect that: “why the dismissal of Manwa Dharin, w/o Rohit Dharin be not held to be unjustified and if yes, what relief is to be granted?” 30. However, in course of inquiry, it has come to the notice of the employer that in place of Manwa Dharin, w/o Rohit Dharin, Tilo Bourin, w/o Girish Bouri has obtained appointment. 31. The moment it came to the notice of the respondent-BCCL, a criminal case was instituted in which Tilo Bourin, w/o Girish Bouri has been convicted. 32. The reference of writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.1714 of 1995 10 LPA No.298/2022 has been made, wherein, the award has been challenged and the ground of impersonation has also been taken, based upon the same, the award passed by the tribunal has been quashed and set aside. 33. Subsequent thereto, writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2097 of 2005 was filed and the learned Single Judge of this Court has directed the respondent concerned to pass an order and in pursuant thereto, the order has been passed on 21.07.2005 coming to the conclusion that Maina Dharain @ Manwa Dharin, w/o Metho Dharin is not the employee of the respondent-BCCL. 34. Learned counsel for the respondent-BCCL, therefore, has submitted that Maina Dharain @ Manwa Dharin, w/o Metho Dharin, since was not the employee, hence, there is no question of consideration of case of the appellant for appointment on the ground of death of his mother. 35. It has further been contended that the said Manwa Dharin, w/o Rohit Dhari, who was the actual appointee as per Form-B has never come before this Court for redressal of her grievance, even though, the reference was made on the basis of the dispute raised by Manwa Dharin, w/o Rohit Dhari. 36. The learned Single Judge has considered that aspect of the matter and further by taking into consideration the fact that the claim of the appellant was rejected vide order dated 21.07.2005 but the same has not been challenged by filing the appropriate application, rather, 11 LPA No.298/2022 the same has been brought only on record by way of supplementary affidavit, therefore, the submission has been made that unless the order dated 21.07.2005 would have been challenged, then only the question of consideration of claim of the appellant would come. 37. Furthermore, even there is no merit on the claim of the appellant, as would be evident from the order dated 21.07.2005, wherein, as per the statutory document, i.e., Form-B, the name of the original employee is Manwa Dharin, w/o Rohit Dharin and herein, the appellant is claiming to be the son of Maina Dharain @ Manwa Dharin, w/o Metho Dharin, hence, even on merit, there is no impropriety in the impugned order, therefore, the instant appeal is fit to be dismissed. Analysis 38. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 39. This Court, on the basis of the contention raised on behalf of the parties and after going through the material available on record, has found that as per the statutory document, i.e., Form-B, the original employee is Manwa Dharin, w/o Rohit Dharin. She has been said to be dismissed from service, therefore, a dispute was raised to answer the reference that:- “as to why the dismissal of Smt. Manwa Dharin, w/o Rohit Dharin be held to be unjustified?” 12 LPA No.298/2022 40. The admitted fact herein is that one Tilo Bourin, w/o Girish Bouri has enjoyed the appointment in the name of Manwa Dharin, w/o Rohit Dharin and as such, considering the case of impersonation, a criminal case was instituted being G.R. No.3745/86, in which, Tilo Bourin, w/o Girish Bouri was convicted. 41. The appellant is claiming to be the real claimant of the post death benefit of the employee, namely, Manwa Dharin has come forward but actually, as per the admitted case of the appellant, he was one of the sons of the Maina Dharain @ Manwa Dharin, w/o Metho Dharin. 42. The award having been passed in favour of the Manwa Dharin, w/o Rohit Dharin by directing for reinstatement with all back-wages, the said award was challenged by filing writ petition being CWJC No.1714 of 1995. The award was quashed on the ground of appointment having been obtained by impersonation vide order dated 16.02.2004, for ready reference, the said order is being referred as under:- “Heard learned counsel appearing for the intervenor on the intervention application, the same is allowed. Petitioner management of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd has challenged the award dated 14.12.1994 passed by Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No.1 Dhanbad in Reference Case no.40 of 1991 whereby he ne answered the reference in favour of respondents against the concerned workman. By order dated 16.4.1991 the appropriate government 2. referred the following dispute for adjudication to the tribunal: "Whether the action of, the management of Ena Colliery under Kustore Area of M/s BCCL in dismissing Smt. Manwa Dharin W/o Rohit Dharin vide their letter no. ENA/PD/CS/89/1700 dated 21.10.89 from the 13 LPA No.298/2022 services w.e.f. 21.10.89 is justified? If not, to what relief the worker is entitled?" The case of the management is that the real person is 3. namely, Manwa Dharin but one concerned workman namely Tilo Bourin W/o Girish Bourid by impersonation entered into service of the management. When this fact was brought to the notice of the Management by real Manwa Dharin/complainant and also by the then Additional District Magistrate domestic inquiry was held. In the domestic inquiry it was found that the concerned workman impersonating the name of Manwa Dharin entered in the service. The Tribunal in the Award held that management failed to establish the charges the levelled against the concerned workman. However, it is held that the Award will not be taken as going against Manwa Dharin alias Maina Dharin in cese she has already been inducted into service by the Management or the Award will not be used against the real Manwa Dharin in case the rmanagement proposes to employ her if she has not already been employed. The real person filing namely, Manwa Dharin intervention application wherein it is stated that intervenor is real one and also lodged criminal case against the concerned workman and the concerned workman has been convicted by the criminal court in G.R.No.3745/86. A copy of the judgment has been annexed as Annexure- A to the intervention petition. intervened in the case by It appears that before the admission of 4. the writ application notices were issued to the concerned workman but inspite of service of notice she neither appeared nor filed counter affidavit. Even after the writ application was admitted, fresh notice was sent to respondent no.2 the Longman concerned reependent but inspite of service of notice she did not turn up nor filed any counter affidavit. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and evidence of the case particularly the judgment of the criminal court whereby the concerned workman has been convicted, the impugned order declaring dismissal of the concerned workman from service illegally cannot be sustained in law. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ application is allowed 6. and the impugned award passed by the tribunal is quashed.” 43. Subsequent thereto, that too without challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.02.2004 passed in CWJC No.1714 of 1995, another writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2097 of 2005 was filed by Maina Dharin @ Manwa Dharin, W/o Metho Dharin 14 LPA No.298/2022 seeking therein her reinstatement in service, for ready reference, the said order is being quoted hereinbelow:- “Heard the parties. In is unfortunate that in spite of the judgment and Order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.1717 of 1995, the respondents have not implemented the Judgment. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents very fairly submitted that the respondents the matter and pass immediately shall appropriate order. take up In view of the fair stand taken by Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel the respondents to take final decision in the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. the respondents, I direct for The writ application stands dispose of.” 44. The respondent authorities have taken the decision vide order dated 21.07.2005, for ready reference, the operative part of the said order is being quoted as under:- “ ….. ….. In view of the above, it is to be mentioned that the management having gone through the entire aspect of the instant matter, came to the conclusion that since the form-B register has been established to be the statutory document as per various pronouncement made by the superior legal forum and in the instant case as per the entries made in Form-B register, Manwa Dharin wife of Rohit Dhari was the employee of Ena Colliery under Kustore Arca. Secondly, Tilo Bourin wife of Girish Bouri, who was impersonating Manwa Dharin wife of Rohit Dhari was convicted by the criminal court and lastly the lady Maina Dharin @ Manwa Dlarin, claiming to be the real Manwa Dharin appears to be the wife of Metho Dhari and not the wife of Rohit Dhari, i.e irrespective of the entries made in Form-B register, hence the claim of the present petitioner Maina Dharin @ Manwa Dharin wife of Metho Dhari is not tenable. As such the management is not in a position to accept the claim of the petitioner for her employment in place 15 LPA No.298/2022 of Manwa Dharin wife of Rohit Dhari whose whereabouts are yet to be established.” 45. Again, the writ petition has been filed being W.P.(S) No.6493 of 2007, the subject matter of the present appeal making therein the prayer of issuance of direction upon the respondent for reinstatement of the original petitioner, i.e., Maina Dharin @ Manwa Dharin, of which, she was deprived of by the impersonator, who was convicted in a criminal case. 46. The matter has been heard by the learned Single Judge, wherein, the entire facts regarding impersonation and consequence thereof, the conviction of Tilo Bourin, w/o Girish Bouri, the order passed by this Court in CWJC No.1714 of 1995 and W.P.(S) No.2097 of 2005 had been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. 47. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the entire aspects of the matter and considering the fact that the order dated 21.07.2005, has not been challenged by filing the appropriate application seeking amendment for addition of prayer in the writ petition, which is the subject matter of the present appeal. 48. The ground which is being raised on behalf of the appellant claiming himself to be one of the son of Maina Dharin @ Manwa Dharin, W/o Metho Dharin, which according to the appellant, is the actual employee in whose favour the reference was also answered but illegally the appointment was obtained by Tilo Bourin, w/o Girish Bouri by impersonation. 16 LPA No.298/2022 49. This Court has gathered from the material available on record that particularly the Form-B which is being the statutory document that the actual employee is the Manwa Dharin @ Maina Dharin, w/o Rohit Dhari. The same is being corroborated from the terms of reference, wherein, the reference has been made on the basis of the dispute raised by Manwa Dharin @ Maina Dharin, w/o Rohit Dhari, as would be evident from the terms of reference. 50. The law is well settled that disclosure so made in Form-B, being the statutory document, is to prevail, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. Vrs. Chhota Birsa Uranw, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 570, wherein, at paragraph-10, it has been observed that the Form-B register is a statutory document. 51. Admittedly, the name of Maina Dharin @ Manwa Dharin, W/o Metho Dharin is not available in Form-B, rather, the name of Manwa Dharin @ Maina Dharin, w/o Rohit Dhari is available, therefore, the claim so made on behalf of one of the sons of Maina Dharin @ Manwa Dharin, W/o Metho Dharin claiming himself to be legal heir for the purpose of claiming appointment due to demise of his mother in harness after the reference having been answered in favour of Manwa Dharin @ Maina Dharin, w/o Rohit Dhari. 52. But, this Court is not impressed with such ground, reason being that, in the Form-B, the actual employee is Manwa Dharin @ Maina Dharin, w/o Rohit Dhari then where is question of claiming by Maina 17 LPA No.298/2022 Dharin @ Manwa Dharin, W/o Metho Dharin, as the actual employee, reason being that, the name of Maina Dharin @ Manwa Dharin, W/o Metho Dharin is not available in Form-B. 53. The said aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the authority in the impugned order dated 21.07.2005. However, before the learned Single Judge, the order dated 21.07.2005 was not challenged, rather, the same was brought it on record by way of supplementary affidavit. 54. The question herein is that unless the specific prayer is being made for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, there cannot be any order quashing the decision taken by the administrative authority by issuance of Writ of certiorari. 55. The learned Single Judge has gone into that premise and has rejected the writ petition. 56. One of the grounds, therefore, has been taken on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that even though, the order dated 21.07.2005 has not been challenged, but since, it was available on record, therefore, its propriety ought to have been considered. 57. This Court, in order to consider the said argument and considering the jurisdiction of the Letters Patent Appeal Court which is furtherance of the writ proceeding, is of the view that the said argument needs to be answered herein. 58. The law is well settled that unless a specific prayer is being 18 LPA No.298/2022 made, the writ petitioner seeking a direction that to for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, then, only an specific direction can be issued by the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing the Writ of Certiorari, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2010) 12 SCC 609, at paragraph 15, 16 and 17 has held as under: “15. It is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana this Court has observed as under: (SCC pp. 542-43, para 13) “13. … In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter- affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. … there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading i.e. a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.” 16. Similar view has been reiterated in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 19 LPA No.298/2022 v. State of Gujarat, National Buildings Construction Corpn. v. S. Raghunathan, Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani, Chitra Kumari v. Union of India and State of U.P. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey. 17. In Atul Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan Singh this Court observed as under: (SCC p. 140, para 12) “12. … The findings in the absence of necessary pleading and supporting evidence cannot be sustained in law.” 59. Herein, it is the admitted case of the writ petitioner that the order dated 21.07.2005 has not been challenged. Further, no application has been filed for moulding the prayer by way of addition. 60. This Court, in that view of the matter, is of the view that in absence of any specific prayer made to that effect for issuance of Writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 21.07.2005, no such relief can be granted. 61. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the aforesaid fact and hence, the aforesaid finding, according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 62. It is evident from the factual aspect that more particularly, the Form-B where the name of Maina Dharin @ Manwa Dharin, W/o Metho Dharin is not available, rather, the name of Manwa Dharin @ Maina Dharin, w/o Rohit Dhari is available and as such, it is the admitted fact as per the statutory document, i.e., Form-B, Manwa Dharin @ Maina Dharin, w/o Rohit Dhari is the actual employee. 20 LPA No.298/2022 63. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the authority while passing the order dated 21.07.2005. 64. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the aforesaid order on the basis of discussion made hereinabove, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 65. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussion and in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case as referred above, is of the view that the order passed in such circumstances by the learned Single Judge, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 66. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 67. In consequence thereof, Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Rohit/-A.F.R. 21 LPA No.298/2022