Gour Chandra Gope Vs. Central Coalfields Limited and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]d.g.r. patnaik, j.1. heard counsel for the parties.2. the petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to grant him promotion to the grade-iii post, on the ground that he has been working on the post of lamp issuer for the past 20 years and does possess all the requisite qualifications for his promotion and yet while persons junior to him have been granted the promotions, he has been arbitrarily denied the benefit of such promotion.3. from the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the relevant documents including annexure-3 to the writ application which is a letter dated 19.10.1991 issued by the senior personnel officer to the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner was acknowledged to be working on the post of lamp issuer. his claim for promotion to the higher post of grade-iii has been refused only on the ground that he had not submitted his educational qualification namely the matriculation certificate.4. learned counsel for the petitioner acknowledges that the petitioner is a non-matriculate but explains further by reference to the promotional rules as applicable to the respondent company, that for the promotion to grade-iii post, the requisite qualification is matriculation or equivalent examination by any board of examination or non-matriculate who have passed the departmental written and practical tests.learned counsel explains that the petitioner's grievance is that though knowing fully well that the petitioner is a non-matriculate and in order to acquire the eligibility he needs to pass the departmental written and practical tests, but the respondent authorities have never offered him opportunity to appear at such departmental written and practical tests and on the other hand, have been denying the benefit of promotion to him only on the ground that he does not possess the matriculation certificate.5. the respondents, on the other hand, while denying and disputing the claim of promotion to the petitioner, have taken stand that the petitioner's contention that he is presently working on the post of lamp issuer is incorrect and misleading and as a matter of fact, the petitioner who was initially employed on the post of pump khalasi on 31.12.1972, was regularized on the post of lamp cleaner in category-ii with effect from 09.10.1983 and thereafter he was upgraded as category-iii with effect from 01.07.1994 and more recently a further upgradation has been given to him in the category-iv with effect from 01.01.2003.6. the above contention of the respondents appears to be contradictory to the letter (annexure-3) issued by the senior personnel officer to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to submit his matriculation certificate. in the aforesaid letter, the designation of the petitioner has been acknowledged as lamp issuer.7. learned counsel for the respondents concedes that though the petitioner has been upgraded to category-iv on a higher pay scale, but such pay scale is not equivalent to the pay scale of grade-iii post.8. from the facts pleaded, it appears that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has been given upgradation in his pay scale, but his eligibility for promotion to the post of grade-iii has not been closed merely on account of such upgradation. on the other hand, it appears that the petitioner could have been promoted to clerk grade-iii if only he had possessed the requisite educational qualification namely either matriculation or equivalent to matriculation or had passed the departmental written and practical tests.9. if this is so and if the respondents have already been informed that the petitioner is a non-matriculate, then it was obligatory on the part of the respondent authorities to offer opportunity to the petitioner to appear at the requisite written test and practical test to enable him to pass such examination and thereafter acquire the requisite eligibility for his promotion to the clerk grade-iii post. admittedly, no such opportunity was given to the petitioner at any point of time in the past.10. considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to give an opportunity to the petitioner to appear at the next departmental written and practical tests as and when held and thereafter, depending upon the petitioner's success or otherwise at such examination, an appropriate decision be taken regarding the petitioner's promotion to the clerk grade-iii post.let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents.