Jharkhand High Court
Prabhat Kumar vs B.C.C.L on 17 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6493 of 2007
1. Prabhat Kumar
2. Dileep Kumar Ram
3. Pradeep Kumar Ram
4. Anil Kumar Ram
All 4 sons of late Metho Dhari, resident of village Kustore no.3,
Jora Chimni P.O. Kustore, P.S. Kenduadih District Dhanbad
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. B.C.C.L, Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad, represented through the
Director (Personnel)
2. The Managing Director, B.C.C.L, Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad
3. The Project Officer, Kustore Colliery, B.C.C.L, Dhanbad
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
33/17.02.2022 I.A. No.7072 of 2019
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this
interlocutory application has been filed under Section 340 of Code of
Criminal Procedure read with Section 193 of Indian Penal Code.
2. He submits that in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent
no.4, it has been stated at para 8 that one Tilo Bourin, wife of Girish
Bouri was found to be impersonating Manwa Dharin @ Maina
Dharin, wife of Rohit Dhari of Ena Colliery. He also submits that in
counter-affidavit, it has been mentioned that a criminal case was also
instituted against Tilo Bourin, wife of Girish Bouri for impersonating
Manwa Dharin @ Maina Dharin, wife of Rohit Dhari in G.R. Case
No.3745 of 1986 and in the said criminal case, Tilo Bouri, wife of
Girish Bouri was convicted for impersonating Manwa Dharin @
Maina Dharin, wife of Rohit Dhari.
3. The learned counsel submits that the judgement of the aforesaid
G.R. Case being No.3745 of 1986 has been filed by him by way of
rejoinder to the counter-affidavit which is dated 27.02.2019 and as per
the said judgement, the informant of the case was Maina Dharin @
Manwa Dharin, wife of late Metho Dhari and the person who was
convicted was Maina Dharin, wife of Rohit Dhari, who was found to
be Tilo Bouri wife of Girish Bouri.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a
comparative chart has been provided in the petition under Section 340
of Code of Criminal Procedure in the I.A. No.7072 of 2019. The
learned counsel submits that in view of the comparative chart,
mentioned in the I.A. No.7072 of 2019, the statement made at para 8
of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no.4 requires enquiry and
a proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C. be instituted.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court
finds that the affidavit which has been filed by respondent no. 4 is
apparently based on the findings recorded in the order dated
21.07.2005 as contained in Annexure - 3 which is a reasoned order
passed in compliance of direction issued by this Court in W.P.(S).
No.2097 of 2005 and the said reasoned order is not under challenge in
this writ proceedings and does not form part of the prayer in the writ
petition.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no ground is
made out in the present interlocutory application for instituting any
inquiry against the respondents as prayed for in I.A. No.7072 of 2019.
Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. It is made clear that
dismissal of this interlocutory application will have no bearing in the
merit or otherwise of the present case and the main writ petition is to
be decided on the basis of the reliefs prayed for and the materials
available on record.
W.P.(S). No.6493 of 2007
1. Heard Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
writ petition was filed originally by Maina Dharin @ Manwa Dharin,
wife of Metho Dhari seeking a mandamus upon the respondents for
reinstatement of the original petitioner of which she was deprived of
by the impersonator, who was convicted in a criminal case and also
seeking a direction to correct/amend the Form -B register to ensure
payment to her along with full back wages with interest @ 12% with
effect from the date when the impersonator's name was entered in
Form - B register of BCCL as this Court vide order dated 05.05.2005
passed in W.P.(S). No.2097 of 2005 had directed for implementation
of earlier order of this Court observing that it was unfortunate that in
spite of judgment and order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.1714
of 1995, the respondents did not implement the judgement.
4. The learned counsel submits that the original petitioner had
earlier moved this Court in a writ petition being W.P.(S). No.2097 of
2005 wherein aforesaid observation was made and a stand was taken
by the respondents that the respondents shall immediately take up the
matter and pass appropriate order and consequently a direction was
issued to the respondents to take a final decision in the matter within a
period of two months from the date of receipt for production of a copy
of the order.
5. The learned counsel submits that consequently the order dated
21.07.2005 was passed by the Chief General Manager, BCCL,
Kustore area as contained in Annexure - 3 to the writ petition.
6. The learned counsel submits that during the pendency of the
writ petition, the original writ petitioner has expired and has been
substituted by legal heirs and therefore, there may not be any occasion
to give employment to the original petitioner, but it is certainly a case
where some compensation should be paid by the respondents to the
present petitioners as the present petitioners have suffered on account
of acts, omission and illegalities committed by the respondents. He
submits that the present petitioners were substituted by virtue of order
dated 09.08.2017 passed in this case.
7. Upon a specific query asked from the learned counsel for the
petitioners that from perusal of the writ petition, it appears that no
challenge to Annexure - 3 to the writ petition has been made in the
prayer portion, the learned counsel has referred to a supplementary
affidavit filed by Anil Kumar Ram, son of the original petitioner after
death of the original petitioner and through the supplementary
affidavit, the order as contained in Annexure - 3 to the writ petition
has been sought to be challenged. Admittedly, no petition for
amendment to the writ petition to incorporate such prayer has been
filed.
8. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has also submits that merely because Annexure - 3 has not
been specifically challenged in para 1 or in the prayer portion of the
writ petition, the same can still be set aside as the original petitioner
was mainly aggrieved by rejection of her claim vide order as
contained in Annexure - 3 to the writ petition in spite of the fact that
no amendment petition having been filed seeking amendment of the
relief prayed for in the writ petition. The learned counsel submits that
in exercise of power under Section 226 of the Constitution of India,
this Court has wide power to impart substantial justice to the
downtrodden persons and merely because Annexure - 3 to the writ
petition has not been challenged by way of amendment application,
the same can still be looked into and be set aside in view of the
supplementary affidavit filed in the present case.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that
the original impersonator had filed a case in the Labour Court and an
award was passed in her favour in Reference Case No.40 of 1991
whereby the reference was answered in her favour and against the
present respondents. The said award was subject matter of challenge
in C.W.J.C. No.1714 of 1995. He submits that in C.W.J.C. No.1714 of
1995, the original writ petitioner of this case had filed an intervention
application and the intervention was allowed. It was brought to the
notice of this Court that the impersonator has been convicted in a
criminal case on account of impersonating the original petitioner of
this case and consequently taking this aspect of the matter into
account, the writ court in C.W.J.C. No.1714 of 1995 had set aside the
award passed in favour of the impersonator. The learned counsel
submits that the impersonator having been convicted in the criminal
case, there can be no doubt that the original writ petitioner of the
present case was the genuine person and accordingly, the claim of the
original writ petitioner could not have been rejected vide Annexure -
3 dated 21.07.2005 of the present writ petition. The learned counsel
submits that exemplary compensation should be awarded in favour of
the present petitioners so that a substantial justice is done as no
employment can be provided to the present petitioner on account of
the death of the original petitioner.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent BCCL has vehemently
opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and
submits that Annexure - 3 dated 21.07.2005 which is not under
challenge in the writ petition as per its prayer, the same may not be
set-aside. He also submits that the original writ petitioner being dead,
admittedly no employment can be granted. He also submits that there
is no occasion to pay any compensation to the petitioners and claim of
compensation, if any, is highly disputed and cannot be decided in writ
jurisdiction.
11. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties appearing
before this Court and considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, this Court finds that the original writ petitioner had made a
prayer for reinstatement of her services and she was deprived of it on
account of acts of an impersonator. The imposter was convicted by a
criminal court. The original writ petitioner had earlier filed a writ
petition before this Court being C.W.J.C. No.1714 of 1995 wherein
certain directions were passed in her favour. Subsequently, when such
directions were not complied with, another writ petition being W.P.(S)
No.2097 of 2005 was filed by her, which was disposed of vide order
dated 05.05.2005 and pursuant to such direction issued vide order
dated 05.05.2005, the order dated 21.07.2005 as contained in
Annexure-3 to the writ petition was passed by the concerned authority
whereby employment to the original writ petitioner has been denied
interalia on the ground that in the Form -B register, the entry was
made in the name of Manwa Devi, wife of Rohit Dhari. In the present
writ petition, order dated 21.07.2005 as contained in Annexure-3
refusing to grant employment to the original writ petitioner has not
been specifically challenged and the same has been sought to be
challenged by filing supplementary affidavit by the present petitioners
after the death of the original writ petitioner and it is not in dispute
that no employment can be provided as the original writ petitioner has
already expired.
12. This Court is of the considered view that any amendment
regarding relief can be brought on record only by way of filing an
amendment petition by way of an interlocutory application. Further,
no useful purpose will be served by entering into the legality and
validity of Annexure-3 to the writ petition as no relief of employment
can be granted on account of death of the original petitioner.
Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the challenge to
Annexure - 3 to the writ petition which is sought to be challenged by
filing a supplementary affidavit. Moreover, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has himself stated that the present petitioners who have
been substituted in place of the original petitioner would now at best
be entitled to compensation.
13. So far as grant of compensation on account of alleged damages
suffered on account of acts and omissions of any of the respondents is
concerned, this Court is not inclined to grant any such relief to the writ
petitioners in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.
15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands dismissed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
