Santosh Kumar Vs. Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors.

Santosh Kumar vs Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Jharkhand Decided Aug 01, 2006

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/523615

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/523615
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: Permod Kohli, J.
Decided On: Aug 01, 2006
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

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

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 173(1) Proviso; [D. Biswas, Amitava Roy & I.A.Ansari, JJ] Appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation Maintainability - Held, If the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal ...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Santosh Kumar

Respondent

Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: [2008(4)JCR26(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. .....superintendent of police. tika devi's affidavit was obtained, but not agreed to.6. from the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that all material evidence furnished by the petitioner has not been agreed to by the respondent-company, but one fact remains that petitioner was not provided any opportunity to lead any evidence. as a matter of fact, no enquiry has been conducted. it is not a mere question of determination of claim of the petitioner for employment, it also involves his social status in the society. the findings, thus, adversely affect civil rights of the petitioner.7. under such circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the respondents to have conducted an enquiry in association of the petitioner providing him opportunity to establish his status before the en- quiry officer/committee. even the documentary evidence furnished by the petitioner has been rejected without recording any reason and on conjectures and surmises.8. i am conscious of the fact that this court cannot sit as a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities, but at the same time, if it appears to the court that the decision has been arrived at on the basis of irrelevant material and the relevant material has not been taken into consideration, the court thus bound to examine and if necessary to interfere in the order total process appears to be without observing the strict principles of natural justice.9. in the aforesaid circumstances, i set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to reconsider the issue of status of the petitioner and consequently his right to seek compassionate appointment after holding an enquiry in regard to his status. respondents may appoint an appropriate officer to hold an enquiry. petitioner shall be provided an opportunity to place any relevant material on record and also to lead evidence, if required. respondents are also at liberty to get the matter examined through police/revenue agency, if so required process of.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Permod Kohli, J.

1. Petitioner claims to be son of Late Ram Bahadur, a former employee of the respondent-Company, who died in harness on 20th May, 1995. He applied for compassionate appointment after the death of the deceased employee. His claim was earlier rejected vide order dated 23rd/26th April, 1999.

2. Petitioner filed a writ petition before his Court, being CWJC No. 3382 of 1999(R). This petition was disposed of vide order dated 21st June 2001, wherein following directions were issued:

In the aforesaid background, the impugned letter can not be upheld. Accordingly, the order contained in letter dated 23/26. 4. 1999 is set aside. The case is remitted to the respondents to decide the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment taking into consideration the evidences as brought on record of the present case. If necessary, the respondents may request the S.P. to enquire the question as to whether the petitioner is the son of Late Ram Bahadur or not and obtain affidavit from the widow, Smt Tika Devi.

3. In view of the above directions of the Court, petitioner appears to have made representation, which has been considered, and order dated 6th/7th November, 2001 passed upon this representation rejecting his claim on the ground that he is not established that he is the son of the deceased employee.

4. Respondents have relied upon some documents made by the deceased employee in his LIC For-A somewhere In the year 1983. Even the School Certificate produced by the petitioner has not been accepted.

5. This Court while Issuing directions had also asked the respondents to obtain affidavit from Tika Devi, mother of the petitioner and second wife of the deceased employee and also, if necessary, request the Superintendent of Police to enquire the question. Indisputedly, no enquiry was got conducted through the concerned Superintendent of Police. Tika Devi's affidavit was obtained, but not agreed to.

6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that all material evidence furnished by the petitioner has not been agreed to by the respondent-Company, but one fact remains that petitioner was not provided any opportunity to lead any evidence. As a matter of fact, no enquiry has been conducted. It is not a mere question of determination of claim of the petitioner for employment, it also Involves his social status in the society. The findings, thus, adversely affect civil rights of the petitioner.

7. Under such circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the respondents to have conducted an enquiry in association of the petitioner providing him opportunity to establish his status before the En- quiry Officer/Committee. Even the documentary evidence furnished by the petitioner has been rejected without recording any reason and on conjectures and surmises.

8. I am conscious of the fact that this Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities, but at the same time, if it appears to the Court that the decision has been arrived at on the basis of irrelevant material and the relevant material has not been taken into consideration, the Court thus bound to examine and if necessary to interfere in the order total process appears to be without observing the strict principles of natural justice.

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to reconsider the issue of status of the petitioner and consequently his right to seek compassionate appointment after holding an enquiry in regard to his status. Respondents may appoint an appropriate officer to hold an enquiry. Petitioner shall be provided an opportunity to place any relevant material on record and also to lead evidence, if required. Respondents are also at liberty to get the matter examined through police/revenue agency, if so required process of consideration shall be completed within a period of four months.

Let appropriate order be passed thereafter if the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected it shall be by a reasoned order in the event, the claim of the petitioner is established as son of the deceased employee, his case will be considered for compassionate appointment in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter.

10. Petition is allowed.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2006 Same Parties Santosh Kumar vs Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge Permod Kohli, J.

Service