Dismissed

Sarju Shaw v. Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.

Jharkhand HC16 Nov 2016LPA/345/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkand dismissed the Legal Provision Application by Sarju Shaw, an employee of Bharat Coking Coal Limited. The appellant sought correction of his date of birth in his service record. The Court found serious disputed questions of fact unsuitable for a writ petition under Article 226 and granted liberty to file a civil suit, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the appellant to file a civil suit. The legal provision application is dismissed with no further order as to costs.

Sarju Shaw Vs Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its… — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 345 of 2016

Sarju Shaw

... Appellant .

Versus

M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

¶6

The Director Personnel of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited.

¶7

Chief General Manager (Personnel), Sijuwa Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited.

¶8

Personnel Manager of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Sijuwa Area.

¶9

Project Officer, Nichitpu Colliery, Sijuwa Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited. ... ... ... … Respondents.

¶10

... ... ... … Respondents.

¶11

CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADIP KUMAR MOHANTY, A.J.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN

¶12

-----For the Appellant : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate.. For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate.

¶13

6/16.11.2016: Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶14

Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is an employee of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited and he had filed the writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to correct his date of birth in his service record as 01.07.1958 in place of 28.11.1956, which has wrongly been recorded in his service record.

¶15

Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the appellant had made his representation for correction of his date of birth for the first time on 24.06.2014 i.e. at the fag end of his service career, therefore, the learned Single Judge had not entertained the writ petition and dismissed the same.

¶16

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the record of this case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 05.07.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5935 of 2015 as there is no infirmity in it. Further from the record, we find that there is serious disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, liberty is given to the appellant to file a suit, if so advised.

¶17

This L.P.A. is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶18

(Pradip Kumar Mohanty,A.C. J.)

¶19

( Ananda Sen, J.)

¶20

Sharma/Anu/-

Sarju Shaw v. Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarju Shaw v. Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Kumar Rajgariah Vs Urban Development Department

Nirmala Devi Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Director General Vigilance Bureau and Anr. Vs Jharkhand Against Corruption through Is Convener Surya Singh Besra and Ors.

Dipak Kishore Dutta Roy and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Principal Secretary Deptt of Agriculture and Ors.

Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors. Vs P K Chakraborty

Kinu Munda Vs State of Jharkhand