Binod Kumar Sinha Vs. B.C.C.L. Through Its Chairman-cum-managing Director and ors.

Binod Kumar Sinha vs B.C.C.L. Through Its Chairman-cum-managing Director and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Jharkhand Decided Feb 07, 2008

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/518099

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/518099
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: N.N. Tiwari, J.
Decided On: Feb 07, 2008
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Article 215: [M. Karpaga Vinayagam, CJM, .Y.Eqbal & Amareshwar Sahay, R.K. Merathia, Narendra Nath Tiwari, JJ] Contempt Proceedings Review Powers of High Court Held, Article 215 of the Constitution vests the High Court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish fo...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Binod Kumar Sinha

Respondent

B.C.C.L. Through Its Chairman-cum-managing Director and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: [2008(3)JCR99(Jhr)]

Excerpt

.....record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of..........without any legal authority, the petitioner's claim for either regularisation on the post of supervisor (telecom) or the claim of salary of supervisor (telecom) cannot be accepted.7. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts and materials brought on record. the petitioner claimed that he has been working as supervisor (telecom) at kustore area office, epabx exchange by virtue of authorization letter dated 10th may, 2002 (annexure-1). on perusal of annexure-1, it appears that the same is a certificate of authorization to look after the job of supervisor (telecom) issued by the superintending engineer (e&m;), telecom, kustore area. there is no document to show that the petitioner has been discharging the duties of a supervisor (telecom).8. admittedly, the petitioner is holding the post of telephone operator, grade d. it is not the case of the petitioner that telephone operator, grade d can be directly promoted to the post of supervisor (telecom). in the reasoned order passed by the general manager, kustore area, he has categorically mentioned that the petitioner had not performed the duty of supervisor (telecom), nor he had ever worked as supervisor (telecom) and there was no ground for payment of wages of supervisor (telecom). the authorization letter issued by the superintending engineer (e&m;), kustore area, telecom, kustore area has got no value, as he was not empowered to issue such authorization letter.9. the said finding has been disputed by the petitioner. it has been stated that the petitioner has been working as supervisor (telecom) since he was authorised to do so in the year 2002 by letter dated 10th may, 2002 (annexure-1).10. so far as the said factual dispute is concerned, the same cannot be adjudicated upon and decided in writ jurisdiction of this court. for the aforesaid reason, the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. this writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. the petitioner is at liberty to.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

N.N. Tiwari, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 29th December, 2005 passed by the General Manager, Kustore Area No. VIII, whereby the petitioner's representation for consideration of his request for regularisation on the post of Supervisor (Telecom) as also for payment of wages of Supervisor (Telecom) for the duty he has discharged has been rejected.

2. The petitioner is a Telephone Operator, Technical Grade-D and joined in the services of the BCCL in 1993. The petitioner claimed that by letter dated 10th May, 2002, the Superintending Engineer (E&M;), Telecom, Kustore Area, authorised the petitioner to look after the job of Supervisor (Telecom) of Kustore Area Office, EPABX Exchange.

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that though he was authorised to look after the job of Supervisor (Telecom), neither the salary of Supervisor (Telecom) has been paid to him nor he has been regularized on the said post.

4. Earlier the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4189 of 2005 for redressal of the said grievance. This Court by order dated 9th September, 2005 disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondent-BCCL to dispose of the petitioner's representation by passing appropriate order in accordance with law. By impugned order dated 29th December, 2005 (Annexure-5), the petitioner's representation has been rejected. Thus, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, stating, inter alia, that the writ petition is not at all maintainable. The petitioner has got no right either for regularisation on the post of Supervisor (Telecom), Grade-A, or for payment of additional salary for the alleged duty of Supervisor (Telecom), Grade-A. The petitioner's representation has been thoroughly considered and the respondents have passed a reasoned order in the light of the guidelines issued for promotion.

6. The respondents stated that at present, the petitioner is working as Telephone Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade-D. As per the cadre scheme, a Telephone Operator shall be promoted first to the post of Senior Telephone Operator, Grade-II, in Technical and Supervisory Grade C. Thereafter, next steps of promotion is Senior Telephone Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade B and then to the post of Supervisor (Telecom) in Technical and Supervisory Grade-A. The petitioner, who is in Grade D, cannot suddenly be promoted to Grade A, as he has to cross the prescribed steps. It has further been stated that the petitioner's claim regarding his wages has been also enquired into. It has been found that the petitioner has never performed the duty of Supervisor (Telecom). His claim is baseless. There is no ground for claiming the wages of Supervisor (Telecom). The authorization letter issued by the Superintending Engineer (E & M), Telecom dated 10th May, 2002 is without any authority, as the Superintending Engineer (E & M), Telecom, Kustore Area is not empowered to such authorization. On the basis of any order issued by the person without any legal authority, the petitioner's claim for either regularisation on the post of Supervisor (Telecom) or the claim of salary of Supervisor (Telecom) cannot be accepted.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the facts and materials brought on record. The petitioner claimed that he has been working as Supervisor (Telecom) at Kustore Area Office, EPABX Exchange by virtue of authorization letter dated 10th May, 2002 (Annexure-1). On perusal of Annexure-1, it appears that the same is a certificate of authorization to look after the job of Supervisor (Telecom) issued by the Superintending Engineer (E&M;), Telecom, Kustore Area. There is no document to show that the petitioner has been discharging the duties of a Supervisor (Telecom).

8. Admittedly, the petitioner is holding the post of Telephone Operator, Grade D. It is not the case of the petitioner that Telephone Operator, Grade D can be directly promoted to the post of Supervisor (Telecom). In the reasoned order passed by the General Manager, Kustore Area, he has categorically mentioned that the petitioner had not performed the duty of Supervisor (Telecom), nor he had ever worked as Supervisor (Telecom) and there was no ground for payment of wages of Supervisor (Telecom). The authorization letter issued by the Superintending Engineer (E&M;), Kustore Area, Telecom, Kustore Area has got no value, as he was not empowered to issue such authorization letter.

9. The said finding has been disputed by the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner has been working as Supervisor (Telecom) since he was authorised to do so in the year 2002 by letter dated 10th May, 2002 (Annexure-1).

10. So far as the said factual dispute is concerned, the same cannot be adjudicated upon and decided in writ jurisdiction of this Court. For the aforesaid reason, the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for adjudication of his aforesaid claim.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2008 Same Parties Binod Kumar Sinha vs B.C.C.L. Through Its Chairman-cum-managi... Same Subject Service Same Judge N.N. Tiwari, J.

Service