Keshav Prasad Sharma vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. on 30 November, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Keshav Prasad Sharma vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. on 30 November, 2022

Bench: Vishal Dhagat

                                   1
IN    THE        HIGH       COURT OF MADHYA                        PRADESH
                             AT JABALPUR
                            BEFORE
              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                   ON THE 30 th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
                   WRIT PETITION No. 24013 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
KESHAV PRASAD SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI KASHIRAM,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CLERK GRADE
II BAHERABAN SUB AREA HASDEV ANUPPUR DIST.
ANUPPUR M P (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                 .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.C. GHILDIYAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI M.K. RAJAK -
ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. THR. ITS
      CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DRECTOR SEEPAT
      ROAD BILASPUR CG (CHHATTISGARH)

2.    GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH EASTERN COAL
      FIELD  LTD. POST OFFICE BIJURI (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    PERSONAL MANAGER BAHERABAND / HASDEV
      AREA SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELD LTD. BIJURI
      DISTT.ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANOOP NAIR - ADVOCATE)

      This petition has come up for admission on this day, the court passed
the following:
                                    ORDER

Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making a prayer that respondents authority may be directed to make payment of salary to petitioner for period between 30.09.2018 to 06.11.2019.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner has worked during 30.09.2018 to 06.11.2019 with respondents, therefore, if payment of salary is not made to petitioner for said period then said non- payment of salary will amount to taking Begar from petitioner and said is prohibited by Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel appearing for respondents opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that payment of salary for aforesaid period cannot be given to petitioner. Petitioner continued for said period on basis of an interim order dated 19.09.2018 passed by this Court. Interim order was passed in favour of petitioner as petitioner made specific averment before Court and asserted that representation preferred by petitioner has not been decided and respondents are bent upon retiring him. Petitioner suppressed the fact that representation has been decided by respondents authority. Petitioner played fraud upon Court to obtain interim order and on basis of that fraud petitioner has continued for period 30.09.2018 to 06.11.2019.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner h a s already been punished as writ appeal was dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- for suppression of fact and now respondents cannot deny to make payment of salary for period during which petitioner has worked, otherwise same will amount to be begar.

Article 23 of the Constitution of India is quoted as under:-

"23. Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour-(1) Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.

(2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of 3 religion, race, caste or class or any of them."

Article 23 of the Constitution of India prohibits forced labout without remuneration. Case of petitioner is not that of force labour without remuneration. It is a case where petitioner has suppressed the information from Court and has obtained stay order. Petitioner's writ appeal was dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/-. Any order which has been passed on basis of fraud is void. Had there been no order dated 19.09.2018 then petitioner could not have continued to work for period between 30.09.2018 to 06.11.2019. Petitioner cannot take advantage of his own wrong for gains. Court cannot give premium to petitioner for fraud played upon by him. Again petitioner is abusing the process of Court for seeking relief banking upon the wrong committed by him.

Considering the same, writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- and same shall be deposited in the Madhya Pradesh High Court Legal Services Authority.

VISHAL DHAGAT) SHABANA ANSARI Digitally signed by SHABANA ANSARI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=4bc06f2e678b75148b60bb7947ee9ffc5ed27ef1f43a5d4d93d2d13dda5107 35, pseudonym=B646F86821C200C9792A53984F1D0790135DE39A, serialNumber=8A5E15A33816E651B4DB52BF3225281EF6C191F68E5EBE90A6E101C F42422711, cn=SHABANA ANSARI Date: 2022.12.03 11:43:33 +05'30' JUDGE shabana

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court