Jharkhand High Court
Sahatam Singh Son Of Late Harihar Singh vs Bokaro Steel Plant Through Its Managing ... on 27 February, 2023
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1743 of 2012
Sahatam Singh son of late Harihar Singh, Resident of Qr. No.1011,
Sector IV - C, P.O. & P.S. - Sector - IV, District Bokaro
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Bokaro Steel Plant through its Managing Director, Administrative
Building, P.O. & P.S. - B.S. City, Bokaro
2. The Executive Director (P&A), Bokaro Steel Plant, P.O. & P.S. -
B.S. City, Bokaro
3. General Manager (Town Services), Nagar Seva Bhawan, Bokaro
Steel Plant, P.O. & P.S. - B.S. City, Bokaro
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. B.B. Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Saket Upadhyay, Advocate
---
07/27.02.2023 Heard Mr. B. B. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Saket Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
For issuance of direction upon the respondents in the nature of certiorari for quashing/rescinding/cancelling the order dated 21.02.2012 vide Ref. No. GM(TS)2012-1009 (Annexure-1) issued by respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioner has been informed that his term as Member (Technical) CGRF, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City is likely to expire on 27.02.2012.
For issuance of further writ of Mandamus or in nature thereof commanding/directing upon the respondents not to create any obstruction in functioning the petitioner as Member (Technical), CGRF, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City till 08.06.2013.
4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had retired on 30.06.2008 upon attaining the 60 years of age. The petitioner was appointed for a term of 3 years w.e.f. 28.02.2009 as Member (Technical) in Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Bokaro.
5. While the petitioner was in the office, Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Ranchi issued Notification dated 09.11.2011 with a clear stipulation that the regulation shall come into force from the date of its publication in the Gazette and shall be 2 applicable to the existing members and Chairperson of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. Learned counsel has referred to clause-5 of the aforesaid Notification dated 09.11.2011 to submit that as per clause-2 thereof, every Member of the Forum was to hold office for a period of five years or 65 years of age, whichever is earlier. The learned counsel submits that since the Notification dated 09.11.2011 had come into force during his tenure of 3 years, the tenure of the petitioner stood automatically extended till 08.06.2013 when he attained the age of 65 years. The learned counsel submits that impugned Annexure-1 dated 21.02.2012 was issued by the respondents wherein the term of the petitioner has been shown to be expiring upon completion of 3 years on 27.02.2012 (i.e 3 years from 28.02.2009) and it was also mentioned that there has been no further extension of the term of the petitioner. He submits that the impugned letter has been issued in total disregard to the aforesaid Notification dated 09.11.2011. The petitioner had filed representation before the respondents on 28.02.2012 and also before the Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission on 01.03.2012. The learned counsel has referred to the writ petition to submit that on 28.02.2012 when the petitioner went to his office, he found that the respondents had put a lock and had also removed his name plate.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the aforesaid Notification, the petitioner was entitled to receive salary as per last pay drawn minus the pension and other benefits mentioned therein. The learned counsel submits that as on date the period as per notification has expired, but the petitioner has been illegally prevented from performing his duty and therefore the petitioner is entitled for the differential salary for the period he has been illegally prevented from discharging his duties.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has referred to the counter affidavit and has submitted that vide letter dated 12.03.2012, a response was given to the petitioner and it was also mentioned that the petitioner had snatched the attendance register meant for CGRF Chairperson and Member from dealing Assistant on 22.02.2012 which was totally undesirable, unethical and contrary to the terms and conditions of the service of the 3 petitioner. The learned counsel has also referred to another letter dated 12.03.2012 wherein it was mentioned that there has been no extension of the services of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that these two letters have not been disclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition which was filed on 30.03.2012. No rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following dates are not in dispute: -
(a) 2005- Guidelines for Establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of The Consumers and Electricity Ombudsman, Regulations, 2005 was notified by Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Ranchi
(b) 30.06.2008 - The petitioner retired from the post of Deputy General Manager - I/c (Electrical).
(c) 28.02.2009 - The petitioner was appointed as Member (Electrical) of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), SAIL/ Bokaro Steel City for a period of 3 years.
(d) 09.11.2011 - Guidelines for Establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of The Consumers and Electricity Ombudsman, Regulations, 2011 was notified by Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Ranchi.
(e) 27.02.2012 - Terms of 3 years expired and termination of his term was intimated to the petitioner vide letter dated 21.02.2012 (Annexure - 1).
(f) 27.02.2012 - The petitioner filed representation to the General Manager (Town Services) SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant protesting to the letter dated 21.02.2012 stating that the petitioner was appointed as per the earlier Regulation of 2005 and as per the new Regulation of 2011, the petitioner has to continue in his office till completion of five years.
(g) 28.02.2012 - Similar grievance was raised before the Jharkhand State Regulatory Commission.
(h) 30.03.2012- The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for quashing the letter dated 21.02.2012 wherein it was mentioned that the term of the petitioner expired on 27.12.2012 and the 4 petitioner prayed for a mandamus to ensure his continuance in office till 08.06.2013.
9. The specific case of the petitioner is that the Regulation 1 (iv) read with Regulation 5 (2) of Electricity Regulation, 2011 which came into force w.e.f. 09.11.2011 will be applicable to the existing Members and Chairperson of the Forum and therefore the term of the petitioner was extended automatically till 08.06.2013. The petitioner vide representation dated 01.03.2012 addressed to the Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission informed that in terms of the Regulation of 2011, he has to continue up till 08.06.2013. The petitioner also informed the concerned authorities that the office of the petitioner was found locked.
10. From perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is clear that grievance redressal forum for electricity distribution for SAIL/BSL, B.S. City was constituted. Vide letter dated 24.02.2009, the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission conveyed the approval of the Commission for appointment of two members only for consumer grievance redressal forum (hereinafter referred to as CGRF) of Sail/ BSP which included the name of the petitioner. It was also mentioned therein that the Commission, while approving the panel, had observed that one independent Member will be appointed by the Commission shortly and that the senior in rank should be the Chairperson of the Forum. The terms and conditions of appointment were also approved by the Commission. The perusal of the said communication dated 24.02.2009 clearly demonstrates that the appointment of the petitioner as a Member of CGRF as well as the terms and conditions of appointment were finalized and approved by the Commission and the respondents herein had appointed the petitioner only upon receipt of approval from the Commission.
11. It further appears from the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was initially appointed by following the procedure as laid down under the Guidelines for Establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers and Electricity Ombudsmen Regulation, 2005 dated 06.04.2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation of 2005), which clearly provided that the age of the person to be considered for appointment as a Member should be 50 years and every 5 Member of the Forum shall hold office for a term of 3 years and shall not be eligible for re-appointment to the same post. It was also provided that no member of the Forum shall hold office after he has attained the age of 65 years. The constitution of the forum and the procedure for appointment was also provided in the said Regulation.
12. It further appears from the counter-affidavit that a letter dated 12.03.2012 was issued to the petitioner in response to the petitioner's letter of complaint about locking the office stating that the petitioner was no longer supposed to act as a Member (Technical), CGRF Bokaro Steel Plant/Bokaro Steel City w.e.f. 28.02.2012 and hence the petitioner was not entitled for any chamber in the office of CGRF/SAIL/BSP w.e.f. 28.02.2012. It was also alleged therein that the petitioner had forcibly snatched the attendance Register meant for CGRF Chairperson & Member from the dealing Assistant on 22.02.2012, which was totally undesirable, unethical and contrary to the terms and conditions of the service.
13. Another letter dated 12.03.2012 issued to the petitioner has been annexed along with the counter-affidavit, which deals with the extension of the terms of the petitioner as Member (Technical). It has been mentioned in the letter that the petitioner was initially appointed for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 28.02.2009 and the term has expired from 27.02.2012. It was further mentioned that the Secretary In- charge of Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Ranchi vide letter dated 28.02.2012 had made it clear that the decision of extension of the term of the petitioner was at the discretion of the licensee. It was also communicated to the petitioner vide the said letter dated 12.03.2012 that no further extension of the term was under
consideration as was already communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 21.02.2012.
14. This Court finds that the aforesaid two letters both dated 12.03.2012 have material bearing in the present case, but the petitioner has suppressed both the letters while filing the writ petition on 30.03.2012. It is also important to note that no rejoinder to the counter-affidavit has been filed in the present case.
15. The aforesaid two letters dated 12.03.2012 alleges violation of terms and conditions of service and that the Commission had informed 6 the respondents vide letter dated 28.02.2012 making it discretionary at the hand of the respondents to extend the term of the petitioner beyond 3 years after its expiry on 27.02.2012.
16. This Court finds that the petitioner has not even made the aforesaid Commission as a party respondent in the present case, who had initially approved the terms and conditions and tenure of appointment of the petitioner for three years.
17. Apparently, the Commission had left it to the discretion of the respondents regarding extension of the term of the petitioner and the extension was refused by the respondents by exercising their discretion and was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 12.03.2012 annexed with the counter affidavit. This letter denying extension of service is not even under challenge in this writ petition.
18. It is clear that the extension of the term of the petitioner was discretionary at the hand of the respondents as per the communication received from the Commission, but the petitioner is claiming automatic extension of his tenure through the writ petition on the basis of aforesaid Notification dated 09.11.2011 issued by the Commission.
19. From perusal of the Notification dated 09.11.2011 issued by the Commission, this Court finds that though the regulations have been made applicable to the existing Members and Chairperson of the CGRF, but there is no provision for automatic extension of the tenure of the Members, who were working on the date of coming into force of the Notification dated 09.11.2011. In the present case, the Regulation dated 09.11.2011 has to be read with the action of the Commission, who had communicated to the respondents that extension of the term of the petitioner would be discretionary at the hand of the respondents. Neither such decision/communication of the Commission is under challenge in the present proceedings nor the Commission has been made a respondent in the present case.
20. This Court is of the considered view that the respondents having been granted the discretion by the Commission in the matter of extension of the service of the petitioner, and the respondents having exercised their discretion as per the direction/communication from the Commission, no case for interference in such decision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been made out by the petitioner.
7Such exercise of discretion is neither arbitrary nor contrary to the aforesaid Notification dated 09.11.2011 nor contrary to the direction/communication issued by the Commission to the respondents in the matter of extension of the service of the petitioner.
21. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for in this writ petition.
22. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
23. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav