Shri Rajendra Mahavir Gupta vs Western Coalfields Ltd. & Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 6739 Bom

     WP 317.2000 (J).odt                           1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                               
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                               WRIT PETITION NO.317 OF 2000




                                                       
     Shri Rajendra s/o Mahavir Gupta,
     (Jaiswal) @ Rajendra Mahavir,
     aged about 51 years, Occupation-Service,




                                                      
     R/o. Colony No.3, Kawelu Centre Incline,
     W.C.L. Quarters, Kamptee Sub-Area,
     Kamptee, District-Nagpur.                          ..             Petitioner 




                                                  
                                    .. Versus ..

     1]     Western Coalfields Limited, through
                             
            its Chief General Manager, 
            Nagpur Area, Jaripatka, Nagpur.
                            
     2]     Sub-Area Manager, Kamptee Sub-Area,
            Western Coalfields Ltd., Kamptee,
            Tah. Kamptee, District-Nagpur.

     3]     The Dy. Chief Personnel Manager,
      

            Kamptee Sub-Area, Western Coalfields
            Limited, Kamptee, Tahsil-Kamptee,
   



            District-Nagpur.

     4]     Dy. Chief Personnel Manager,
            W.C.L., Chandrapur Area,
            Tahsil and District-Chandrapur.             ..             Respondents





                            ..........
     Shri V.A. Dhabe, counsel for the petitioner,
     Shri Tushar Darda, counsel for the respondents.





                            ..........

                                    CORAM :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK  AND
                                             MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : NOVEMBER 28, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner had sought a direction against

the respondents to issue a proper posting to the petitioner. The petitioner had

sought a direction against the respondents to allot surface duty to the

petitioner. A direction is also sought against the respondents to pay the salary

to the petitioner for the period from 13.9.1999 to 14.11.1999 and from

13.12.1999 to 28.4.2000.

Shri Dhabe, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that

the petitioner has retired from service after attaining the age of

superannuation and some of the prayers made in the writ petition would not

survive. The learned counsel states that the grievance of the petitioner would

stand redressed, if a direction is issued against the respondents to pay the

salary to the petitioner for the period from 13.9.1999 to 14.11.1999 and from

13.12.1999 to 28.4.2000.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the

petitioner was declared unfit for underground duty by the Apex Medical

Board, the petitioner was offered an alternate job on surface from time to time.

However, despite the posting of the petitioner for the surface job, the Sub-Area

Managers, where the petitioner was posted with surface job, did not permit the

petitioner to join the duty. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been

wrongfully restrained from performing his duties for the surface job from

13.9.1999 to 14.11.1999 and from 13.12.1999 to 28.4.2000. It is stated that

though the petitioner reported to the respondent no.4 along with the joining

report, no duty was allotted to the petitioner.

Shri Darda, the learned counsel for the respondents has opposed

the prayer made by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was at

fault in not joining the duties at the place where he was posted. It is stated

that, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner would not be entitled to

the relief claimed.

On a perusal of the writ petition and the documents annexed

thereto, it appears that though the petitioner was asked to join the surface

duties with the respondent no.4 at Rajur Sub-Area and the petitioner went to

Rajur Sub-Area for joining the duties, the petitioner was not permitted to join.

The said fact could be substantiated from the communication addressed by the

Sub-Area Manager of Rajur Sub-Area to the Deputy Personal Manager

(Administration), dated 9.10.1999 in which it is clearly stated that it would be

difficult to accommodate the petitioner in Rajur Sub-Area and the petitioner

should be accommodated in some other sub-area. We find, on a perusal of the

documents annexed to the petition that though the petitioner was desirous of

joining the duty, he was prevented to do so for the period from 13.9.1999 to

14.11.1999 and from 13.12.1999 to 28.4.2000 and hence the respondents

would be liable to pay the salary to the petitioner for the said period.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly

allowed. The respondents are directed to release the unpaid salary to the

petitioner for the period from 13.9.1999 to 14.11.1999 and from 13.12.1999

to 28.4.2000 along with the other monetary benefits, within four months.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to

costs.

                                      JUDGE                                             JUDGE

     Gulande, PA