W.P.(S) No. 887 of 2008
Union of India ...... Petitioner
Versus
Bijay Kumar ...... Respondent
With
W.P.(S) No. 978 of 2008
Union of India ...... Petitioner
Versus
Kundan Kumar Singh ...... Respondent
With
W.P.(S) No. 608 of 2008
Union of India ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. Md. A. Salim
2. Amresh Kumar Karu
3. Budhai Devi
4. Jaikali Pramanik
5. Raghunath Pandey
6. Jageshwar Paswan
7. Phulchand Yadav
8. Kumar Pankaj ...... Respondents
PRESENT
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
For the Petitioner : Md. M.Khan, ASGI (in all cases)
For the Respondents : M/s. M.M.Pal, Sr. Advocate
Mahua Palit & Leena Mukherjee.
By Court Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The case of the petitioner as delineated in the order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal dated 21.11.2007 in paragraph 2 is
as under :
"2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was
initially appointed as Extra Departmental Mail Man
(EDMM) in the year 1997. Thereafter, the applicant was
granted promotion as Mail Man (GroupD post) on the
recommendation of DPC. He joined the post on
13.02.2002
in temporary capacity. He was confirmed on
the said post vide order dated 22.03.2004 (Annexure
A/3). He was permitted to appear in the departmental
examination for promotion to the cadre of Postal
Assistant/Sorting Assistant to be held on 23.05.2004.
The grievance of the applicant is that by a cryptic and
non speaking order dated 30.07.2004 his appointment in
the post of Mail Man has been cancelled merely on the
ground that his appointment was irregular………”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Union of India, drew our
attention towards departmental letter No. 6029/98SPBI(Pt)
dated 14th July, 2001 which reads as under :
“…….
2……
3….. You are therefore, requested to immediately
carry out a review in your Circle and submit a report to
the Directorate covering the requirement of all cadres in
your Circle division wise so as to reach us by 31st July,
2001 in the enclosed proforma. As the above information
has to be submitted to the Screening Committee, which
will be chaired by the Secretary (Posts), you must certify
accuracy of the information, while submitting the same.
Needless to say, recruitment process for the year 2001
should commence only after obtaining the approval of
Screening Committee. It may be further clarified that the
above instructions will apply only to the vacancies to be
filled up by direct recruitment and it will not apply to
recruitment by promotion.”
4. According to the argument of the learned counsel for the
Union of India, since the appointment of the respondents was not
approved by the Screening Committee, their services were
terminated.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that
appointment of the respondents was after recommendation by the
D.P.C. and an order of confirmation has come in place. Once the
order of confirmation on the post, in which the respondents were,
comes, then subsequently they only get a promotion and for that
promotion the aforesaid letter has no application, as stated in the
order itself. Therefore, on account of nonapproval by the Screening
Committee, it cannot be said that the services of the respondents
would liable to be discontinued by termination.
6. In our considered opinion, the petitioner had proceeded on
the wrong premises because once an employee is appointed and
confirmed on a post then he does not remain a temporary employee
and he acquires a substantive right and that substantive right
cannot be taken away only on the ground stated in a letter which
only applies in case of fresh appointment. In that view of the
matter, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal suffers from
no illegality. These petitions are meritless; hence dismissed.
(Bhagwati Prasad,C.J.)
(D.N.Patel, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
The 18th February, 2011
N A F R
Dey/Birendra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 76 of 2009
Kamla Shankar Dubey …… Appellant
Versus
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Others …… Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
For the Appellants : Mr. Jai Prakash, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. A.K.Mehta, Advocate
0817.02.2011 This appeal will be heard.
As the respondents have appeared through their counsel, no
notice need be issued.
(Bhagwati Prasad,C.J.)
(D.N.Patel, J.)
Dey/Birendra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(PIL) No. 1530 of 2009
Yuva Shakti Manch, Bokaro …… Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Others …… Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
For the Petitioner : J.C. to Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. D.K.Dubey, G.P.I
For the Respondent UOI : Mr. FaizurRahman, CGC
For the Accused No. 6 : Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate
15/17.02.2011 The Investigating Officer has so far not shown result
notwithstanding the earlier orders. Learned Government Pleader
seeks two week more time to impress upon the Court as to what
steps have been taken on behalf of the Investigating Officer.
Learned counsel appearing for accused No. 6,
Ratan Kumar Singh, urges that his bail application is not being
disposed of by the learned Special Judge .
We think that learned Special Judge is doing things
judiciously. He will dispose of the bail application on the next date
of hearing.
Put up this case after two weeks on 04.03.2011.
(Bhagwati Prasad,C.J.)
(D.N.Patel, J.)
Dey/Birendra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
T.A. No. 10 of 2010
With
T.A. No. 9 of 2010
Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna …… Appellant (in both cases)
Versus
M/s. TISCO …… Respondent(in both cases)
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
For the Appellant : Mr. D.Roshan, Advocate
For the Respondent :
05/17.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the revenue.
The questions sought to be raised are questions of facts.
Whether the L.T.C. which were claimed by the employees were, in
fact, availed or not is the question sought to be agitated, which is a
question of fact. The Tribunal in its order has specifically stated that
the employer cannot be punished for the alleged delinquency. If at
all the department has any grievance, then at time of the
assessment of the assessee, all these questions can be gone into and
enquired into.
We do not think that any illegality has been committed by the
Tribunal. No question of law emerges in this case. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
(Bhagwati Prasad,C.J.)
(D.N.Patel, J.)
Dey/Birendra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 376 of 2010
Employers in relation to the Management of
Hindustan Copper Limited …… Appellant
Versus
1. The Union of India
2. Moidul Haque …… Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K.Das, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate
07/17.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
The respondent no.2 was sanctioned leave from 24.07.95 to
29.07.95. The charge against him was that he unauthorizedly absented
himself from service for more than ten days continuously, on account of
which, he was prosecuted in a departmental proceeding. Ultimately,
punishment of dismissal was awarded, which was set aside by the
Labour Tribunal and upheld by the learned Single Judge. Since it was a
case of absence of the employee, no back wages were awarded.
We do not think that any illegality has been committed by the
courts below. For a delinquency of mere absence of more than ten days,
dismissal could not have been awarded. The employee has been kept out
of employment for a very long time and this, by itself, is a sufficient
punishment for the absence, for which he was out, because no back
wages have been awarded.
In that view of the matter, the order of reinstatement is not seen
with any illegality in it because the employee has been deprived of
emoluments of sufficiently long period. The appeal is thus dismissed.
(Bhagwati Prasad,C.J.)
(D.N.Patel, J.)
Dey/Birendra