M/S. Central Coalfields Limited vs Anita Kumari
2021 Latest Caselaw 3842 Jhar

                              1



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  L.P.A. No. 152 of 2021
                           -------

1. M/s. Central Coalfields Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered Office at Darbhanga House, Katchhery Road, P.O. - G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), through its Chairman cum Managing Director (Administration) Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, aged about 57 years, son of Late Ramji Singh, residing at Qtr. No.3A/13, CCL Jawahar Nagar Colony, Kanke Road, P.O. - Ranchi University, & P.S. - Gonda, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand).

2. The Director (Personnel) Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Katchhery Road, P.O. - G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

3. The General Manager (P&IR), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Katchhery Road, P.O. - G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)

4. The General Manager, Kathara Colliery, the Central Coalfields Limited, P.O.-Kathara, P.S.- Bokaro Thermal, District - Bokaro (Jharkhand).

5. The Senior Officer (P & A), Kathara Colliery, the Central Coalfields Limited, P.O.-Kathara, P.S.- Bokaro Thermal, District - Bokaro (Jharkhand).

6. The Personnel Officer, Kathara Colliery, the Central Coalfields Limited, P.O.-Kathara, P.S.- Bokaro Thermal, District - Bokaro (Jharkhand).

                     ...     ...       Respondents/Appellants
                             Versus

Anita Kumari, aged about 37 years, Sister of Late Selw Kumar Swamy and daughter of Late E. Manu Swamy, resident of Colony No.1, Kathara, PO-Kathara, PS-Bokaro Thermal, District-Bokaro (Jharkhand).

                     ...     ... Petitioner/Respondent
                           --------
CORAM :              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

--------

For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate

--------

Oral Order Order No.04/ Dated 7th October, 2021

Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

2. The instant appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the

Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated

04.11.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in

W.P.(S) No.4929 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the

learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and

quashed the impugned order dated 02.02.2016 by which the

claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was

rejected and further directed the appellants to take decision

afresh in light of discussions made in W.P.(S) No. 2147 of

2018.

3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in

the writ petition which require to be referred herein, read as

under :-

The father of the writ petitioner namely, Late E. Munnu

Swamy, while working under the respondents, died in

harness on 03.02.1984. The mother of the writ petitioner

namely, Smt. Rajni Amal was appointed on compassionate

ground on 25.04.1984 on account of death of her husband.

She also died in harness on 10.06.1988. The brother of the

writ petitioner namely, Selw Kumar Swamy was appointed

on compassionate ground on 31.01.1989 and in his service

book, the name of the writ petitioner namely, Anita Kumari

as the only nominee/dependent of her brother, is

mentioned. Unfortunately, the brother of the writ petitioner

namely Late Selw Kumar Swamy, while working under the

respondents, has also died in harness on 29.12.2014 due to

liver disease and C.R. failure.

One of the sisters namely, Reeta Kumari also died on

15.08.2005 prior to the death of the brother of the writ

petitioner and other two sisters have got married and they

are living in their in-laws house and the writ petitioner is the

only alive unmarried sister.

The writ petitioner, left with no source of livelihood,

submitted representation on 05.09.2015 for payment of

entire death-cum-retiral benefits being only dependent of his

deceased brother as also claimed for appointment on

compassionate ground vide application dated 19.01.2016.

The claim of the writ petitioner has been rejected vide

decision of the authority dated 02.02.2016 stating that

sister is not entitled for employment under provision of

NCWA under 9.3.0.

The writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ

petition questioning the decision of the administrative

authority and by taking into consideration the order passed

by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2147 of 2018, in L.P.A. No. 617

of 2017 and in L.P.A. No.475 of 2017, the learned Single

Judge has allowed the writ petition by quashing and setting

aside the impugned order dated 02.02.2016 with a liberty to

the writ petitioner to file representation along with order

passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.2147 of 2018 and the

respondents, in turn, have been directed to take decision

afresh in the light of the discussion made in W.P.(S) No.2147

of 2018 within a period of eight weeks from the date of

receipt/production of a copy of the order.

4. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the

CCL management, has submitted that the very basis upon

which the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside

the order passed by the administrative authority of CCL

dated 02.02.2016 i.e., Letters Patent Appeals being L.P.A.

No.617 of 2017 and L.P.A. No.475 of 2017, have already

been challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court which is

lying pending for its consideration and in that view of the

matter, the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed

the writ petition and, therefore, the order passed by learned

Single Judge suffers from infirmity.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-

management and considered the factual aspect involved in

this case as also the order passed by the learned Single

Judge.

It is evident from the order passed by the learned

Single Judge that the order of the administrative authority

of the appellant management has been quashed and set

aside considering the order passed by this Court in L.P.A.

No.617 of 2017 and L.P.A. No.475 of 2017 as also the order

passed in W.P.(S) No.2147 of 2018 and directed the

respondent authorities to consider the case of the writ

petitioner afresh in the light of the discussions made in

W.P.(S) No.2147 of 2018 within the stipulated period.

The sole ground agitated by the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant CCL is that the order passed by

this Court in L.P.A. No.617 of 2017 and L.P.A. No.475 of

2017 are lying pending for its consideration before the

Hon'ble Apex Court and, therefore, the order passed by the

learned Single Judge may be rendered to be unsustainable

in the eyes of law and accordingly, quash and set it aside.

However, on specific query made by this Court as to

whether there is any ad interim order passed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court staying the operation of the order passed in

L.P.A. No.617 of 2017 and L.P.A. No.475 of 2017, the

learned counsel for the appellant CCL has submitted that no

ad interim order staying the operation of the order passed in

L.P.A. No.617 of 2017 and L.P.A. No.475 of 2017 has been

passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

6. The question which is required to be considered is that

mere filing of an appeal will ipso facto require the order

concerned to be kept in abeyance? It is settled position of

law that mere filing of an appeal cannot be a ground not to

follow the judgment passed by a court of law which has got

its binding effect if rendered in the similar facts and

circumstances. The question of judicial discipline is of

paramount importance as, if any order/judgment has been

passed by the court in an intra-court appeal and if it has

been placed before the learned Single Judge it is the

requirement of judicial discipline to follow the said judgment

passed by the Division Bench unless until the Single Bench

deems it desirable to refer the matter to a larger Bench.

Therefore, if the learned Single Judge has passed the order

by quashing and setting aside the impugned decision in

terms of the order passed in L.P.A. No.617 of 2017 and

L.P.A. No.475 of 2017 with a direction to take a decision

afresh, the same cannot be said to suffer from error, rather

if the learned Single Judge would not have followed the

order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A.

No.617 of 2017 and L.P.A. No.475 of 2017, certainly, it will

be said to be contrary to the principle of judicial discipline.

Further, as would be evident that the fact about

pendency of the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble

Apex Court against the said order has not been brought to

the notice of the learned Single Judge.

7. Thus, according to our considered view, mere

filing of an appeal does not mean that order under challenge

would stand stayed or its operation is to be kept in abeyance

unless any interim order staying the operation of the order is

passed by the court of competent jurisdiction.

8. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter,

according to our considered view, the ground which has

been agitated for assailing the impugned order passed by

learned Single Judge i.e., pendency of the Special Leave

Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court, without any

ad interim stay, cannot be said to be justified ground to

interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

9. Accordingly, the instant appeal lacks merit and as

such, the same is dismissed.

10. It goes without saying that the present decision or the

order impugned would be subject to the decision taken in

the concerned Special Leave Petition.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

Birendra/N.A.F.R.