Jharkhand High Court
Nanku Sao vs The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. ... on 22 February, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A No. 452 of 2018
Nanku Sao, aged about 70 years, Son of Late Bedu Sao, resident of Village
Nagwan, P.O. Lohandi, P.S. Chouparan, District-Hzaribag.
...... Appellant
Versus
1.The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, having its office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S-
Seraidhela, District Dhanbad.
2. The Director (Personnel), M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its
office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S-Seraidhela, District
Dhanbad.
3. The General Manager, Sijua Area No.5, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
P.O. Sijua, P.S. Jogta, District-Dhanbad.
4.The Project Officer, Mudidih Colliery, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
P.O. Sijua, P.S. Jogta, District-Dhanbad. ..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rama Kant Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
-----------
Oral Judgment:
Order No.11/Dated: 22nd February, 2021
1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done
through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding
audio and visual quality.
2. The instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent, is
directed against the order/judgment dated 20.04.2015 passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3984 of 2009, whereby and
whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed, rejecting the prayer for
direction upon the respondents to pay the entire legal and consequential
retiral benefits including the arrears of salary treating him to be in
continuous service without any break as per the original statutory 'Form-B
Register.'
3. The brief fact of the case, which requires to be referred herein, reads
hereunder as:
The writ petitioner, who was an employee of Bharat Coking Coal
Limited (B.C.C.L) having been appointed on the basis of date of birth as
04.05.1948 even though there was no more manipulation in the service
excerpts but one letter was issued on 26.02.1994 intimating him about his
superannuation from service on attaining the age of 60 years with effect
from 28.09.1994.
The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid letter dated
26.02.1994 had raised industrial disputes under Section 10(1)(d) of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 through the sponsored union i.e. Bihar Colliery. The
Award had been passed in the said industrial dispute with an order to
examine the writ petitioner by the Medical Board, decision of which would
be final and in pursuant thereto, the petitioner was subjected to medical
examination from the Apex Medical Board, in which the date of birth of the
writ petitioner was assessed as 57 years as on 14.01.2004.
The writ petitioner had earlier approached to this Court on earlier
occasion in W.P.(S) No.2853 of 2006 for a direction upon the respondents
for disbursement of salary from 28.09.1994 to 25.05.2004 but the writ
petition was dismissed vide order dated 31.10.2007. The writ petitioner has
again moved to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3984 of
2009 for direction upon respondents to pay the entire legal and consequential
retiral benefits including the arrears of salary treating him to be in
continuous service without any break. But the said writ petition has been
dismissed on the ground that the direction sought for in the writ petition has
already been dealt with in another writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2853 of
2006 which was dismissed on 31.10.2007 and therefore, the writ Court has
declined to interfere with the same, on the ground that once the ground has
been agitated in another writ petition, cannot be allowed again, which is the
subject matter of present intra-court appeal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the materials
available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge
in the order impugned.
The admitted fact is that the writ petition being W.P.(S)
No.2853 of 2006 was filed by the writ petitioner for disbursement of salary
from 28.09.1994 to 25.05.2004 which was dismissed vide order 31.10.2007,
has been brought on record by way of Annexure-7 to the writ petition
(W.P.(S) No.3984 of 2009). The order passed therein, reads hereunder as:
"Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed
for a direction upon the respondents to pay his salary for
the period from 28.9.1994 to 25.5.2004, the period during
which he was forced to superannuate on the basis of wrong
recording of his date of birth and was not allowed to work.
The petitioner did raise an industrial dispute and by
reason of an award dated 27.5.2003, the Tribunal held that
superannuation of the petitioner was illegal and thereby the
petitioner was reinstated in service. The grievance of the
petitioner is that he has not been paid his salary for the
period from 28.9.1994 to 25.5.2004.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the
respondents, wherein specific stand has been taken that the
petitioner himself has entered into an agreement with the
respondents that he may be allowed to join his duties
without any back wages. This fact has not been disputed
and/or denied by the petitioner, rather he admits that such
an agreement was entered into by the petitioner.
In view of the fact that the petitioner himself agreed
to be reinstated without any back wages, no relief can be
granted to him. I find no merit in this writ application. It is,
accordingly, dismissed."
The writ petitioner again approached to this Court by filing writ
petition being W.P.(S) No.3984 of 2009 seeking relief for disbursement of
arrears of salary along with consequential retiral benefits, which was earlier
sought for in the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2853 of 2006 and as such,
the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3984 of 2009 has been dismissed on the
ground that the same claim cannot be allowed to agitate again.
5. It is settled position of law that once the writ petition pertaining to
disbursement of arrears of salary has been dismissed the second writ petition
is not maintainable.
The writ petitioner after the order dated 31.10.2007 passed in W.P.(S)
No.2853 of 2006 did not approach to the higher forum, as such, the order
dated 31.10.2007 has become final. Subsequent thereto, the writ petition
being W.P.(S) No.3984 of 2009 has been filed, seeking the same relief.
6. In view of the settled position of law that after dismissal of a writ
petition, seeking the same relief, second writ petition is not maintainable, the
learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition which according to us,
cannot be said to suffer from an error.
7. In the result, this appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Saket/-
N.A.F.R.
