IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.2080 of 2009
Sukri Mahatain .... Petitioner
Versus
M/s. BCCL & Ors. ...Respondents
Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.P.Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents : J.C. to Mr. A. Sen, Advocate
-----
4/14.07.2011
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents
to appoint her dependant son-Tuplal Mahato under the special Voluntary Retirement
Scheme(VRS for short) opted by her.
It has been stated that the petitioner has taken voluntary retirement under VRS.
The Scheme, inter alia, provides for providing employment to one of the dependents.
But employment of petitioner’s son has been arbitrarily denied on the ground that he is
not physically fit for employment in mine. The petitioner’s son thereafter got himself
medically examined by the medical experts, but no infirmity has been found by them.
Even the copy of the report of Medical Board, which had declared the petitioner’s son
unfit, has not been served on the petitioner and no specific infirmity has been pointed
out by the respondents.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating, inter alia,
that the petitioner was found medically unfit for employment in mine and, as such, he
was not appointed. In support of the said statement, the respondents have annexed a
letter written by Personnel Manager(M.P & R) to General Manager, E.J. Area, Dhanbad
dated 11.3.2002(Annexure-A).
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and
materials on record. Though the respondents sought to deny employment of petitioner’s
son on the basis of letter dated 11.3.2002(Annexure-A), on perusal of the said letter, it
is clear that the same is regarding cancellation of posting of the petitioner’s son at
E.J.Area on the ground that he is not physically fit for employment in mine. However,
the said letter does not disclose specific medical infirmity, which renders the petitioner’s
son unfit for employment in mine. The letter also shows that the approval for
employment of the petitioner’s son has been denied by the Personnel Manager(M.P &
R). The reason for not according approval by the said letter dated 11.3.2002 is cryptic,
laconic and non-speaking. The petitioner’s valuable right cannot be denied in such
arbitrary manner. The respondents must record the speaking reasons for not according
approval of the employment of petitioner’s son-Tuplal Mahato and give the details of
medical infirmity due to which he is declared unfit for employment in mine.
Considering the above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned letter dated
11.3.2002(Annexure-A) is quashed. The Personnel Manager, E.J.Area, Dhanbad-
respondent no.5 is directed to pass a speaking order by giving all necessary details,
within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
( Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.)
s.b.