The Project Officer vs Sri Binod Mahato
2021 Latest Caselaw 4420 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                       W.P.(L) No. 313 of 2021
                           ........

The Project Officer, Sendra - Bansjora Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. .... ..... Petitioner Versus Sri Binod Mahato .... ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO ............

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate.

For the Respondent            :
                                ........
07/25.11.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta. The Project Officer, Sendra - Bansjora Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. has preferred this writ petition against the order dated 07.04.2017 passed by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad-I in Application No. 36/(22) /2015.E.6 (Annexure-4), whereby the said authority has been pleased to hold that the respondent is entitled to Gratuity amounting to Rs.1,33,087/- and thus directed the petitioner to pay the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent has been terminated and the termination order has already be upheld by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in, W.P.(S) No.3813/2005 with analogous matters, where the case of respondent herein Binod Mahato in writ petition i.e. W.P.(S) No.4197/2005 has already been taken note of and it has been found that since other co-awardees have not given consent in his favour. Thereafter, it is proved that appointment was erroneously and illegally procured by Sri Binod Mahato against the related land and house as reflected in page-23 of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that once an appointment has been considered to be forged illegal, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Court then subsequent relief like retiral dues, Gratuity, which is part of the retiral benefits cannot be granted to such dismissed employee in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rita Mishra Vs. Director, Primary Education, Bihar reported

in AIR 1988 Patna 26, which has taken note of by the Apex Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 105.

Considering the same, let notice be issued to the respondent under both process i.e. under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process, for which requisites etc. must be filed within a period of two weeks.

Till then the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed as contained in Annexure-4.

However, respondent may file application to vacate such interim order passed in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Jay/-