IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17540 of 2009 1. DEVENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE SUKHNANDAN SINGH R/O VILL.- GIDHA, P.S.- KOILWAR, DISTT.- BHOJPUR AT ARA Versus 1. THE CHAIRMAN, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, SADIK NAGAR, NEW DELHI 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (HR), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE (MD), G-9, ALI YAVAR JANG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI- 400051 3. THE DIRECTOR, MARKETING, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, HO. G-9, ALI YAVAR JANG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI- 400051 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER (RS), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED (MD): ER; 2, GARAIHAT ROAD (SOUTH), DHAKURIA, KOLKATA- 700068 null null 5. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HR)/ER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED(MD):2, GARAIHAT ROAD (SOUTH), DHAKURIA, KOLKATA- 700068 ----------- 3. 09.02.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”). 2. Petitioner’s land was acquired for establishing a bottling plant by the Corporation at Village- Gidha in the district of Bhojpur, Bihar. In the category of land losers he was given employment as Junior Operator (Field) and was assigned 32864 as employment number. Later, he was removed from service of the Corporation as the age certificate given by him at the time of appointment was found forged. Against the removal order he preferred appeal which was dismissed. He filed yet another appeal which was also dismissed. Presently, he has filed appeal/representation dated 1.11.2004 which is addressed to the Chairman of the Corporation and according to the statement made in the writ petition the representation has been referred to the Headquarters for being considered in the light of the circular of the Corporation dated 1.11.1985. Counsel for the petitioner states that even after passage of more than 5 years of the filing/reference of the representation, Annexure-8 to the Headquarters, the same has not been disposed of. 3. Counsel for the Corporation has confirmed the fact that the appeal/representation dated 1.11.2004 has not been disposed of but with - 2 - reference to the averment made in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit it is submitted that repeated appeals filed by the petitioner has no significance. Learned counsel further states that the circular dated 1.11.1985, contained in Annexure-11 is not the circular which was holding the field on the date of appointment/removal of the petitioner from the post of Junior Operator in the Corporation. According to him at the time of employment as also removal of the petitioner the instruction of the Bureau of Public Enterprises issued in the year 1986 was in force and if at all the appeal/representation dated 1.11.2004, Annexure-8 has to be considered it has to be considered in the light of the circular of the Bureau of Public Enterprises issued in the year 1986 and the policy of the Corporation formulated in the year 1987 and not with reference to circular dated 1.11.1985, Annexure-11 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Corporation I am of the view that the appeal/representation of the petitioner dated 1.11.2004, Annexure-8 addressed to the Chairman of the Corporation be considered and disposed of by the Chairman or any other competent authority who is delegated to dispose of such appeal/representation in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)