A petition challenging the rejection of a claim for dependent employment by SCCL. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no relief can be granted as the claim fails to address the prior rejection of dependent status and the validity of the dismissal order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
£1)
IN THP HON’RI P. HIGH COI IRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. {smolwvPf/2012 single
singleBench
Petitioner
Shiv Kumar S/o. Late BhogilalAged about 24 years R/o. Qtr.’No. 349,Block:26, Godripara—750 Chirimiri Dist.:Korea (CG).
VERSUS
Respondents
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through: The Chairman cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (CG). Chief General Manager, Chirimiri Area, Chirimiri Disti: Korea (CG). Sub—Area Manager, Kurasia Group, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. P.O.: Kurasia Colliery, Chirimiri Dist.: Korea (CG). Assistant Manager (Personnel) Kurasia Colliery South Eastern CoalfieldsLtd.P.O.: Kurasia Colliery, Chirimiri, Dist; Korea (CG).
WRIT PFTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTlTUTlON OF INDIA
| WWW ammm |
mafa‘am | WWW WW aqaiwanéw |
|---|---|---|
| SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan 05-09-2012 |
Shrivastava, J. | |
| 1 i |
Shri Somkant Verma, couns Heard. As the application for grant rejected vide impugned order da before this Court. Lea‘r’ned counsel for the p employment because the order o illegal and secondly, it was never ln this writ petition, the pe order of dismissal passed agains and validity of the order of dis petitioner seeks to avoid the submission simplicitor that it was The provisions contained employment to dependent only stated therein that employment worker who is disabled permanen The impugned order of rej the father of the petitioner, he uniess the petitioner successfully grounds as may be availabie to underclause9.3.0ofNCWA,is n contained in clause 9.3.0 of t |
el for the petitioneris. of employment as dependent having been 25/05/12, the petitioner I dependent is d itioner submits that under the provisions CWA-IX, the petitioner was entitled to dismissal of petitioner’s father was tirstiy erved on his father or the petitioner. itioner has not sought any relief against the father of the petitioner. The legality issal has not been challenged but the consequence of the order by making ot servedupon him; in Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA provides for in specified circumstances. It has been uld be provided to one dependent of ly orwho died whiie in service. ticn shows that even before the death of was dismissed from service. Therefore, challenges the order’of dismissal on such m under the law, claim for employment tsustainable in law. o i |
am mm
No relief can be granted to the petitioner in this petition. The petition
is accordingiy dismissed. ‘w H's
Sd/-
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a claim for employment is sustainable when the underlying declaration of dependent status was earlier rejected and the dismissal order remains valid.
Whether Article 226 of the Constitution of India can grant relief where the foundational ground for entitlement has already been adjudicated against the petitioner.
Shiv Kumar
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
