Chattisgarh High Court
Yashwant Singh vs Steel Authority Of India Limited on 13 September, 2022
Author: Arup Kumar Goswami
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 3450 of 2020
Yashwant Singh S/o Ajit Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Village And Post Purai,
District Durg Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
Steel Authority of India Limited Through Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant,
Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, Judge Order on Board Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice 13.09.2022 Heard Mr. Anoop Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.
2. This writ petition is filed against an order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur (for short 'CAT') in Original Application No.203/00277/2016, whereby the learned CAT dismissed the application filed by the petitioner holding that there was no illegality on the part of the respondent in declaring the petitioner unfit for providing alternative jobs.
3. Against the order of termination dated 06.04.1991, the petitioner had approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Jabalpur (for short 'CGIT') by filing Case No.CGIT/LC/R/23/92 and the learned 2 CGIT by an order dated 15.03.1999 set aside the aforesaid order and directed that the petitioner be appointed as Planning Assistant in L-3 grade and that he shall be paid the wages and allowances in that scale within a period of three months, failing which, the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
4. The order of the learned CGIT was challenged in Writ Petition No.3046 of 1999 and the High Court of Chhattisgarh by an order dated 25.02.2013 disposed of the writ petition in following manner :
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur (for short 'the CGIT") by award dated 15-3-1999 (Annexure - P/10) has found the second respondent medically fit and, as such, the order dated 6-4- 1991 whereunder the second respondent was removed from service on account of finding him medically unfit, was quashed.
2. Learned counsel submits that this is a case of impersonation, as it appears that the second respondent has procured employment on the basis of fake certificates. When the second respondent was examined by the petitioner, it was found that the basic features like blood group, etc. were different and the second respondent was not medically fit as he was suffering from congenital heart disease.3
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that it was not a case of impersonation. The second respondent was fully examined and even if subsequently, he was found unfit, the second respondent ought to have been given proper opportunity of hearing to explain his case before coming to the conclusion by the authorities that it was a case of impersonation.
4. Admittedly, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the second respondent before declaring him medically unfit. It is also found that the petitioner has not come forward before the CGIT to explain the case properly.
5. Be that as it may, it requires reexamination and also opportunity to the second respondent to put forward his case. Now, according to the learned counsel, the second respondent has attained the age of 48 years.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the second respondent is not interested in back wages and he only wants some employment so that he can meet out the expenses for the livelihood of his family members.
7. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to consider the case of the second respondent, sympathetically, for alternative employment after holding the proper medical examination, as the case of impersonation has not been proved strictly, except on the 4 basis of certain documents. Accordingly, the award dated 15-3-1999 passed by the CGIT is modified.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order asto costs."
5. Pursuant to the order of this Court, a medical examination was conducted on 31.01.2014, wherein the petitioner was declared unfit for employment in any nature of job.
6. The petitioner assailed the same before this Court by way of filing Writ Petition (L) No.191 of 2015, which was dismissed on 25.02.2016 as not maintainable.
7. It appears that the Medical Board again reviewed the record on 24.08.2016 and found the petitioner unfit for all the categories of job in terms of Clause 4.2 of the Medical Standards for Appointment in Steel Authority of India on the ground that the petitioner was found to have congenital heart disease.
8. The petitioner is now over 56 years of age. That apart, he had also relinquished claim for back wages.
9. In the background of the above, we find no justification to interfere with the order of the learned CAT and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Chief Justice Judge
Anu