r p 1"•I ''''^•'^.-------.-.::^%^^^a^^. ^^r^"^ ..'l^. ^:^\^)^ IN TH.E HI-O-i COURT OF .DHyA PR?^DESH AT JABALPUg? .• 't.^.-^'^^.l.-;'' MISC. PET.ITION N0. PETITIONERS CF0000110896 L^Q O^ 1992 Sami'r Ran.jan Chowdhury^ son of Late K^C^Chowdhury^ aged 49 years^ Occiipation - Ser^ice^ working^^as j3ngi^eer E & M S-2 Grade^ Sou^ - Eastern Coalfields 'Limited^ Korba / fefest ^rea^. Bilaspur^ M^P^ VS« '^ RESPONDEICTSS J~'-s Q l^ Chairman-cum-Managing Director^ Soufh Eastern Coalfielo.3 Limited," Seepat Road^ Bilaspur<, 2^ Chief Genoral Manager- (P & A) Sxecutive Establishment^ Sou.th Eastem'- Coalfields LimitecS^. Seepat. Road^ Bilaspux^ . • • , . -. 3^ Chief General Manager^ '.Kbxba t^est .^j Area^ Sozith Eastem.-Coalfielas .l^td^ Kusmunda, Distt. Bilaspur, M»P.a PEfTITION UNDER ARTICL.ES 2.26/227 OF THE. . CONSTTTUTTON OF I!®IA FOR ISSL^NCEOF •MRIT IN THE KMPURE OF CERTIOSARI, MANDANIJS, PROHIBCTION^ ETC,, STC,, AI1D FO.R APPRGPRI&TE SURTHER DiaECTTO??S. ^, H!GH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASFUR WR'T PETlTsON N0. 1217 OF 1992 /$-^ •''' /i PETiTIONER RESPONOENTS Sanilr Ranjan Cnowdhury Versus ChaSrrnan-cum-Nanaglng . Darector. South Eastern Ccsjfields Llmlted & Others (Writ Peiltion under Articie 226/227 of the t/onstJtution of Indla) Singie 8ench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Gary tvSykhopadhyay, counsel 'for the petitioner. Dr. N.K. ShuKla, 3r. Advocate with Shrt Shailendra Shukls, Advocate for the respondente. (ORAL) (Passed on this 12th dat of Msrch, 2010) 8y this peution, the petiiioner to chaiienge the iegality and valldity of the oraer dated 31-3-1992 whereby and whereunder he reverted from the post of Engln^er (E & M) to.the of Foreman .ln--cnargs .(E & ivl). The petitioner prays for grant ofconseQuentiai benetlts. The indisputabie racts, in brief, for aajudication of the are that initialiy. the petitioner wss appointed as Srrieitlng Asslstant Grade - II m CentraS E & M'Workshop of the respondent company In the year 1977. Thereaftsr; by ordsr 8-8-1990, the petitioner, on consideration, was duiy promoted to the post of Englneer (E & IV1) in E-2 in of pay Rs. 1130-50-1380-60-1800-100-2400/- and at Talcher" (Orissa') with a cpndltion that ths petitioner wiji be. on <^ 's.. i^i probatlon tor a of one year 'at the first Instance. There no other condition to the promotlon. Accordlng to the counsei appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner has his probatlon successfuily. However, ' a!S of a sudden by order 31-3-1992 the order of promotion 8-8-1990, in respect of the pelltioner, was withdrawn on tne ground that dipioma In Englneering possessed by the petitioner not a recognized one. Thus, thls petitlon. 3) Shri yukhopadhyay; leamed. counsel appearing for the petitloner submits that the impugned order wlthout affordlng an opportunity of hearing to put forward the case of the petitloner, as the petltioner has obtained the diploma certificate froin the Regionai Training Instltute, Western Coaiflelds Limltsd; Blsrarnpur (for short "the RTI, WCL").' The petltioner not afforded any opporlunity of hearing to the whelher the RTI, VVCL, recognized or not recognlzed for the purpose of gfanting of ilploma certiflcate.' .4) Opposlna the contention of the courssei' for the petitlcner, Dr. Shukla, iearned senior counsel appearing with Shri Shaiiendra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents, submlts that tnough the RTi, WCL. is runnlng by the respondent authorlties, but wlthout recognition. Learned counsel further subrnlts tnat it is noi ciear frorn the documents that opportunity of hearang afforded to the / ^\ DJ petitioner. Thus, Tor want of proper quaiiflcation the prornotlors' of the petitioner was wltl'idrawn. i have learned counsei for the parties, the pieadings and .the documents thereto. / 6) lt Is evident that the RTI, VVCL, which rynniog by the respondent company, has diploma certificate tof the petitioner. The generai presumption is that if the is run by the respondent company, wbuld .oe recognition. There Is no reason to thlnk contrary •to the general presumptlon,, The empioyees working in the RTi wouid not be / subsequently by taking the that^ie instrtute was not recognized. .!n the meeting ot DlrectQrs'CPersonr'ie!) held cn 8-3-1994 (Annexure ~ A/1) it resoivea by iTiaking l< it ciear that dipioma hoiders who had obtained the 3 dlploma course from. Bishrampur, RTi l.e. RT!, WCL, be given the benefit of /one tjme for the of promotion. Ciause 9 of theeesoiution dated 8-3-1994 as under: 1!(9) . of : The inatter regaralng recognition of dlploma courss' for Elect. & Mech. Foreman conducted bv RTi, Bishrampur was and it that such of the diploma nolders who had the 3 •course from Bishrampur RTI may be given- the of /' r-"~- / - one 'tlme exemptlon for the purpose of promotion. glvlng such benefit the olher dimentlon as mentloned In the agenda note should be Into conslderatlon." 7) In view of the above, the 'stand of tne respondent company tnat the petltlcner was not ellglble for prornolic-n to be rejected. The ernployee who. is working vvjth the respondent conipany rnay not be faulted with.in a where the is running by the resporsdent company without recognitlon. At the most it can be that It was misrepresentallon on the of the respondsnt company 'lo the empioyees, who diploma certificate frorn the RTI, WCL. 8) The petltionery beiieving the fact that the RT'L WCL was a recognized one, certlflcate and prornolion, thereafter. Even the respondent company aiso acceptad the posltion that the diploma certiflcate Issued by the RTi, WCL pr'oper .and accordingly the case ofthe petltioner was duiy consldered and promoted. There no sucrt condition attached to the promotlon order that If any certlficate is founa on as not frorn the Instltute, the proiTiotlon of the petitioner may be cancsiled/withdrawn. Ai! of a sudden after completlon of the probation and after servlce for a period of 19 fnonths, the order to wlthdraw the earilsr promotlcn order over to the Delitioner. pWlNIIN^. 9) Th is no dispute .that no opportunity of hearlng was to the petitioner. This is a that tne order . vlsltlng wlth clvil consequencas has • been without affording opportunity of hearing to the petidoner. 10) It is wel! princlpie of iaw that if any visits wrlh civil consequences, the Is vltiated, if without affordlng an opportunity of hearing to the ernployee(s). (Sse Jha v. of others1, ¥. J.IVIA. Ltd. & Others2, Tlwari v. Universlty & Othsrs", & ¥. Das & Otliers", y. Ltd. & Otherss, & v. of U.P. & Otlier^, Singh Kahlon & Vs. of & others', v. of & Others8, of & Y.Token & Others9, Pratap Singh Jadeja v. & gnottier10. Yyva v. Lashicar , of & v. Throygh -LRs.12). AiR(1991)SC31C -;(19S3)3SCC259 3 A.I.R. (1998)3.0.3261 4 (2003) 4 SCC. 557 ' (2005) 5 SCC 337 6 (2006} 2 SCC 315 '' A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 2571 " (2007) 4 SCC 54 s\(2007) 5 SC.C 65 1°'(2007510SCC71 'l (2008) 2 SCC 479 i2 (2008) 7 SCC 405 --^^; ...-^^-^^ ^^.^%. f"^-: f> 11) Thls Court, In Ku. & v. uf & Others , wheresn an • sdentica! came up for considerstlQn, observed as under: "20, • It is weli that the purpose of rules of natural justjce Is not to adminlster justsce a!one but to prevent of and the princlples of natural justlce are to the admjnlstratjve order, If such order affects right ofacltlzen. XXX XXX XXX 12) Appiylng welS settled prlnclpje of iaw to the of the there Is a common- thread that the principie of natural justice is not unruly horse. The principles of naturai justice are required to be compljed wjth, naving to the obtalned therein. Thus, the prindpies o? natura! justlce may not be requlred to be fotlowed in the cases, where the facts are admitted. . Secondly, that' it Is practically impossibis or hlghly Improbable to afford an opportunlty of hearing, In the event, of quashing of sesection on acccunt of irregularity committed on scaie, or en-mssse canceilation. Thlrdly, no useful purpose wouid be by affording an opportunlty of hearlng." Subsequentiy, the ratio laid down by thls Court In Ko. (supra) has referred approvingly, in & V. & Others . :-: (2008) 2 CGLJ 366 14 (2009) 1 CGLJ 97 i'ft. ..-,...,...„. 'l i ^jssia i Gowrl 13) For the reasons mentloned hereinabove; the irnpugned order dated 31-3-1992 is quashed. Slnce che pstitioner retired from his servlce on attalnlng the age of superannuatlora on 31 "7-2003, relief of restoration o'f promotlon ordei'cannot be granted, however, the petltloner is entltled to a31 the nnonetary bersefits, as if he continued on the promoted from 31-3-1992 tlii the of his rgtirement. The pension of the pglitioner may be fixed accordingly. The payment shall accordlngly, be as expeditiousiy as preferabiy wrthin a perlod of'B from the of receipt of a copy of this order. 14) In the resuit, the wrlt petitlon Is siiowed to the extent Inidicatsd abovs. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge