Allowed

Smt Pandwa Devi v. Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Jharkhand HC3 Mar 2021LPA/521/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge's order quashing a punishment of fine and remitting the matter for a fresh decision was challenged in an appeals under Court Letters Patent. The Court directed the respondents to pay the appellant's back wages within two months based on an affidavit stating such dues were recommended and approved by the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to pay back wages along with details of break-ups in favour of the appellant within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

Smt Pandwa Devi Vs Central Coalfields Limited… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

[1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

L.P.A. No.521 of 2018

¶4

Smt. Pandwa Devi, aged about 65 years, wife of Late Ramdeo Munda, resident of Village-Banda, P.O. and P.S.-Gola, District-Hazaribag (Now Ramgarh), Jharkhand.

¶5

. … Writ-Petitioner/Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Direction C.C.L. Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Sadar, DistrictRanchi, Jharkhand.

¶8

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, C.C.L. Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Sadar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶9

The General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Rajrappa Area, P.O.-Sandi, P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh.

¶10

The Staff Officer (Mining) Rajrappa Area, P.O.-Sandi, P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh.

¶11

The Enquiry Officer, Sri S.K. Mishra, aged about 56 years, S.E. (MIS) (R), P.O.-Sandi, P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

¶12

… Respondents/Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶15

¶16

For the Appellant : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate

¶17

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

18 / Dated 03^rd March, 2021

¶20

The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and video quality.

¶21

[2]

¶22

The instant appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 24.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3029 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the order of punishment dated 18/19.10.2004 passed by the respondent No.3 has been quashed and set aside by remitting the matter before the authority to take a fresh decision on the quantum of punishment.

¶23

It is the case of the appellant/writ-petitioner that after the order having been passed by the writ Court in W.P.(S) No.3029 of 2005 dated 24.06.2016, a decision afresh has been taken vide Office Order dated 25/27.01.2018 whereby and whereunder the punishment of fine amounting to Rs.50/- has been imposed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner submits that since the original order of dismissal has been quashed and set aside by remitting the matter for taking a fresh decision on the quantum of punishment and in pursuance thereto, a fine of Rs.50/- has been imposed upon the appellant/writ-petitioner, in view thereof, the appellant/writ-petitioner is entitled for payment of back wages and other admissible dues treating the appellant/writ-petitioner in service, therefore, a civil misc. petition being C.M.P. No.304 of 2016 with respect to W.P.(C) No.3029 of 2005 has been filed praying therein for a direction upon the respondents for his reinstatement in service along with other consequential benefits but the same has been dismissed by declining the aforesaid relief which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal.

¶25

[3]

¶26

Mr. Chandra Shekhar Pandey, learned counsel for the writpetitioner/appellant has submitted that when the matter has been remanded and fresh decision has been taken by the authority by imposing a fine of Rs.50/-, the petitioner would be entitled for the back wages along with other consequential benefits in monetary terms.

¶27

Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondents-CCL has submitted that since the order of punishment has been passed by imposing penalty of Rs.50/- by passing an order of remand, therefore, the relief which is being sought for by the appellant/writpetitioner cannot be said to be justified one.

¶28

Upon such submission, learned counsel for the appellant/writpetitioner has submitted that if the back wages along with all consequential benefits in terms of money will not be paid, it would amount to changing the nature of punishment which pertains to only imposition of penalty of Rs.50/- which cannot be said to be permissible.

¶29

Upon this, learned counsel for the respondents-CCL has submitted that one affidavit has been filed wherein at paragraphs - 6 & 7 it is stated that a committee has been constituted to consider the claim of the back wages of the appellant/writ-petitioner who has submitted a report recommending for payment of back wages whose decision has also been approved by the competent authority and in pursuance thereto, the respondent-management has decided to pay the back wages which will be released in favour of the appellant/writ-

¶30

[4]

¶31

petitioner and credit in her account in due course. Paragraphs-6 & 7

¶32

of the said affidavit are being reproduced hereinbelow:

¶33

“ 6. That it is stated that the said Committee submitted a report recommending for payment of back wages to the appellant and the report of the Committee was thereafter considered and duly approved by the competent authority of the respondentsCompany.

¶34

7. That it is stated that in view of the acceptance of the recommendation of the Committee, the respondents-Management has already decided to pay the back wages which shall be released in favour of the appellant and credited in her account in due course.”

¶35

This Court, after taking into consideration the submission advanced on behalf of the parties as above and also considering the stand inter alia taken by the respondents-CCL in the affidavit filed on 01.03.2021 at pargraphs-6 & 7, deems it fit and proper to dispose of the instant appeal with a direction upon the respondents to pay the back wages giving therein the details of the break-ups in favour of the appellant/writ-petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of the order.

¶36

In the result, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶37

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶38

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

¶39

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶40

Saurabh

¶41

N.A.F.R.

Smt Pandwa Devi v. Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pandwa Devi v. Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G M I T I through Its One of Its Director Binay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagdish Sharma and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand through Circle Officer Sadar Chaibasa and Anr.

Santosh Vikral Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Building Construction Department Vs Satyendra Kumar Construction Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Deepak Kumar

The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Building Construction Department Vs Satyendra Kumar Construction Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Deepak Kumar

The Jharkhand State Electricity Board through Its Chairman Vs Umesh Prasad Choudhary