Patna High Court - Orders
Ashok Kumar Thakur & Ors vs The Union Of India & Ors on 11 February, 2013
Author: Birendra Prasad Verma
Bench: Birendra Prasad Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15946 of 2005
======================================================
1. Ashok Kumar Thakur S/o Sri Chanan Thakur, R/o F.C.I. Colony, near
B.R. Ambedkar Dental College, (Ram Jaypal Road), Bailey road, P.S.-
Danapur, District- Patna (Town)
2. Hiraman Chaudhary @ H.M. Chaudhary S/o late Phunu Chaudhary, R/o
village- Fateh Jangpur, P.S.- Didarganj, District- Patna
3. Pradeep Kumar Sinha S/o late Bisheshwar Prasad, (C/o Sri Saket Bihari
Sinha), R/o Mohalla- Madhopur, P.S. Kotwali, District- Munger (Town)
at present residing in House No. NY/30-C, Jhun-Jhun Mahal Road, New
Yarpur, P.S. Gardanibagh, District- Patna (Town)
4. Ram Ashish Paswan S/o late Nawlakh Paswan, (C/o Sri Manish
Kumar), R/o village- New Nathupur Road, P.O.- Kurthaul, P.S.- Parsa
Bazar, District- Patna
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through Hon'ble Minister of Chemical & Fertilizers,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Fertilizer) Govt. of India, Department of Fertilizer,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
3. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Hindustan Fertilizer
Corporation Limited, P.P.C.L. Building 12-A (Sector-24) Noida-201301
(U.P.)
4. The Chief Marketing Manager, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation
Limited, 3-Esplanade East, 3rd floor, Kolkata-700069
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Punam Shrivastava, Advocate
Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
ORAL ORDER
8 11-02-2013The grievance of the petitioners in the present proceeding is that in response to the circular dated 13.8.2004 (Annexure-3) issued under the signature of the Chief Marketing Manager of Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited, Kolkata, they gave their consent along with their bio-data in the prescribed performa within the time prescribed for their suitable placement, Patna High Court CWJC No.15946 of 2005 (8) dt.11-02-2013 2/4 yet the matter has not been decided till date by the competent authority and they have been denied their legitimate claims.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were the employees of the Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as Corporation), but under the VSS Scheme floated by the Corporation they all have taken voluntary retirement and have received VSS compensation. However, according to the learned counsel, for suitable placement of the employees including the petitioners, who have taken voluntary retirement under the aforesaid scheme, they have submitted their applications in the prescribed performa, as at the relevant time they all were still having ten years of service left, and, therefore, the Corporation and its functionaries were obliged to consider their claims, but unfortunately, no final decision has been taken till date. It is also the case of the petitioners that they were prepared to return VSS compensation in terms of aforesaid circular dated 13.8.2004 (Annexure-3).
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer made in the present application and has drawn the attention of this Court to the communication dated 23.5.2006 issued by the Joint Secretary of the Department of Fertilizers, Government of India to the Patna High Court CWJC No.15946 of 2005 (8) dt.11-02-2013 3/4 Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation, which has been brought on record as Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It is contended by the learned counsel that in view of the aforesaid communication dated 23.5.2006 the claim of the petitioners could not be considered. However, he has fairly submitted that the aforesaid communication dated 23.5.2006, vide Annexure-C to the counter affidavit, was not communicated to the petitioners and decision regarding each of the petitioners has not been recorded separately by the respondent-Corporation and its functionaries.
In the given facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there are certain disputed facts, which cannot be resolved in the present proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The issues of facts are required to be resolved conclusively by the functionaries of the respondent- Corporation, since petitioners are claiming benefits by virtue of the circular dated 13.8.2004 issued by the Corporation.
In the facts and circumstances set forth above, the petitioners are given a liberty to file their detailed representation separately before the respondent no. 3 or the successor body/authority raising all the grievances, which have been raised in the present proceeding with all supporting documents. The Patna High Court CWJC No.15946 of 2005 (8) dt.11-02-2013 4/4 individual representation must be filed by each of the petitioners within a maximum period of one month from today.
If such a representation is filed within the prescribed period, then the same must be considered and decided by the respondent no. 3 or the successor body/authority by a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law. If, on consideration of the materials, the respondent authorities come to a conclusion that the reliefs claimed by the petitioners are admissible to them, then consequential order shall also be issued without any unnecessary delay. Entire exercise must be completed by the respondent no. 3 or the successor body/authority within a maximum period of six months from the date of filing of the representations.
This application stands finally disposed of with the observations and directions made above.
RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)