Nayeb Singh Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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 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 contemner/lawyer before high court as well as courts under its jurisdiction is based on his repeated convictions for contempt in the past is not violative of article 19(g) of the constitution. no interference in exercise of review jurisdiction is warranted. - 3. according to the petitioner, he was appointed as dozer/scriber operator by the respondents in the year 1975 and at the time of his joining the petitioner gave his date of birth as 4/11/1945, which was recorded in form 'b' register as well as the other statutory records kept in the colliery.orderamareshwar sahay, j.1. heard the parties.2. the petitioner has challenged the order as contained in letter dated 20.10.2001 (annexure-6) issued under signature of the project officer, damagoria colliery, bccl, informing the petitioner that on the basis of the recommendation of the date of birth committee, whereby the age of the petitioner was assessed as 45 years on 21.7.1986 and, therefore, his case for retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme was rejected and it was decided to stop the petitioner from duty and his name was put off from the rolls of the company with immediate effect.3. according to the petitioner, he was appointed as dozer/scriber operator by the respondents in the year 1975 and at the time of his joining the petitioner gave his date of birth as 4/11/1945, which was recorded in form 'b' register as well as the other statutory records kept in the colliery. he was also issued identity card wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 4/11/1945, therefore, as per the date of birth recorded, the petitioner would superannuate from service on 4.11.2005.4. the grievance of the petitioner is that as per the rules and regulations of the respondents, at least six months prior intimation is required to be given to an employee informing him about his superannuation, but the respondents in most whimsical manner stopped the petitioner from duty by issue of annexure-g dated 20/10/2001 on the ground that he has attained the age of superannuation without giving him any notice or information as required. this order as contained in annexure-6 is under challenge in this writ application.the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondents is most arbitrary, illegal and against the norms and rules of the respondents and, therefore, is liable to be quashed.5. on the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit submitted that the petitioner, appeared before the medical board for assessment of his age. the medical board assessed his age to be 45 years on 21.7.1986 and therefore, the petitioner has rightly been superannuated/put off from the rolls of the company after attaining the age of superannuation. it has been denied by the respondents that in the form 'b' register the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 4.11.1945. on the contrary it has been stated that in the form 'b' register the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 45 years on 21.7.1986 as assessed by the medical board. the extract of form 'b' register has been annexed in the counter affidavit.6. it is further stated that the case of the petitioner was referred to the headquarter before the date of birth committee and the committee reviewed and decided to accept the date of birth of the petitioner to be 21.7.1941 and, therefore, the order as contained in annexure-6 was rightly issued and there is no illegality in it. in reply to the statement of the petitioner that prior notice of six months was required to be issued before superannuation which was not issued to the petitioner, it has been submitted that there is no such mandatory requirement for issuance of such notice.7. having heard the parties, i am of the view that in view of the decision in the case of g.m., bharat coking coal ltd., west bengal v. shib kumar dusadh and ors., reported in (2000) 8 scc 696 wherein it has been held by the apex court that the high court's interference under article 226 with the decision of the management to retire an employees on the basis of the report of the medical board was not called for.therefore, in my view no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ application. the order as contained in annexure-6, which is based on the assessment of the age of the petitioner on the basis of medical board cannot be said to be illegal and unjustified. i do not find any merit in this writ application. accordingly, it is dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. Heard the Parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order as contained in letter dated 20.10.2001 (Annexure-6) issued under signature of the Project Officer, Damagoria Colliery, BCCL, informing the petitioner that on the basis of the recommendation of the Date of Birth Committee, whereby the age of the petitioner was assessed as 45 years on 21.7.1986 and, therefore, his case for retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was rejected and it was decided to stop the petitioner from duty and his name was put off from the Rolls of the company with immediate effect.

3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Dozer/Scriber Operator by the respondents in the year 1975 and at the time of his joining the petitioner gave his date of birth as 4/11/1945, which was recorded in Form 'B' Register as well as the other statutory records kept in the Colliery. He was also issued Identity Card wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 4/11/1945, therefore, as per the date of birth recorded, the petitioner would superannuate from service on 4.11.2005.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the Rules and Regulations of the respondents, at least six months prior intimation is required to be given to an employee informing him about his superannuation, but the respondents in most whimsical manner stopped the petitioner from duty by issue of Annexure-G dated 20/10/2001 on the ground that he has attained the age of superannuation without giving him any notice or information as required. This order as contained in Annexure-6 is under challenge in this writ application.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondents is most arbitrary, illegal and against the norms and Rules of the respondents and, therefore, is liable to be quashed.

5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit submitted that the petitioner, appeared before the Medical Board for assessment of his age. The Medical Board assessed his age to be 45 years on 21.7.1986 and therefore, the petitioner has rightly been superannuated/put off from the Rolls of the Company after attaining the age of superannuation. It has been denied by the respondents that in the Form 'B' Register the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 4.11.1945. On the contrary it has been stated that in the Form 'B' Register the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 45 years on 21.7.1986 as assessed by the Medical Board. The extract of Form 'B' Register has been annexed in the counter affidavit.

6. It is further stated that the case of the petitioner was referred to the Headquarter before the Date of Birth Committee and the Committee reviewed and decided to accept the date of birth of the petitioner to be 21.7.1941 and, therefore, the order as contained in Annexure-6 was rightly issued and there is no illegality in it. In reply to the statement of the petitioner that prior notice of six months was required to be issued before superannuation which was not issued to the petitioner, it has been submitted that there is no such mandatory requirement for issuance of such notice.

7. Having heard the parties, I am of the view that in view of the decision in the case of G.M., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal v. Shib Kumar Dusadh and Ors., reported in (2000) 8 SCC 696 wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that the High Court's interference under Article 226 with the decision of the management to retire an employees on the basis of the report of the Medical Board was not called for.

Therefore, in my view no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ application. The order as contained in Annexure-6, which is based on the assessment of the age of the petitioner on the basis of Medical Board cannot be said to be illegal and unjustified. I do not find any merit in this writ application. Accordingly, it is dismissed.