Jharkhand High Court
Sita Ram Mahto vs Damodar Valley Corporation Through Its ... on 25 August, 2017
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S. N. Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 5608 of 2016
===============================================================
Sita Ram Mahto, son of late Domi Mahto, resident of village Telo, P.O. & P.S. Telo, District Bokaro ... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro ... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== With W.P. (S) No. 4810 of 2016 =============================================================== Gopi Nath Thakur, son of late Susen Chandra Thakur, resident of Dahiyari, P.O. & P.S. Bhendra, District Bokaro ... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro ... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== 2 with W.P. (S) No. 4811 of 2016 =============================================================== Dinesh Mahto, son of late Rohan Mahto, resident of Narra, P.O. Narra, P.S. Chandrapur, District Bokaro ... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro ... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== with W.P. (S) No. 4813 of 2016 =============================================================== Arjun Kumar @ Arjun Mahato, son of late Jitan Mahato, resident of village Poplo Kamaldih, P.O. Taranari, P.S. Taranari, District Bokaro ... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro ... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== 3 with W.P. (S) No. 4814 of 2016 =============================================================== Tarkeshwar Kumar Mahato @ Tarkeshwar Prasad Mahato, son of late Pokhlal Mahato, resident of village Poplo Kamaldih, P.O. Chandrapura, P.S. Nawadih, District Bokaro ... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro ... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== with W.P. (S) No. 4815 of 2016 =============================================================== Sukar Mahato, son of late Bachani Mosamat, resident of village Madanpur, P.O. & P.S. Kurumba, District Bokaro ... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro ... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== 4 with W.P. (S) No. 5605 of 2016 =============================================================== Sahib Ram Manjhi, son of late Budhan Manjhi, resident of village Budhidih, P.O. Dugda Coal Washry, P.S. Nawadih, District Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Bokaro Thermal Power Station, Bokaro
4. The Personnel Manager, Damodar Valley Corporation, Bokaro Thermal Power Station, Bokaro.
... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== with W.P. (S) No. 5606 of 2016 =============================================================== Suresh Singh, son of late Gopal Singh, resident of village Narra, P.O. Narra, P.S. Nawadih, District Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro ... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== 5 with W.P. (S) No. 5607 of 2016 =============================================================== Jewan Mahato, son of late Tilak Chand Mahato, resident of village Karmatand, P.O. & P.S. Karmatand, District Bokaro ... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro ... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== with W.P. (S) No. 5609 of 2016 =============================================================== Sundar Lal Mahto, son of late Kedar Mahto, resident of village Laharbera, P.O. Birni, P.S. Nawadih, District Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro
4. The Personnel Manager, Damodav Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Bokaro.
... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== 6 with W.P. (S) No. 5611 of 2016 =============================================================== Anant Lal Pandit, son of late Kisun Pandit, resident of village Khalcho, P.O. Telo, P.S. Nawadih, District Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro ... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== with W.P. (S) No. 5612 of 2016 =============================================================== Murat Singh, son of late Ruplal Singh, resident of village Ghatiyari, P.O. Chandrapura, P.S. Chandrapura, District Bokaro ... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro ... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== 7 with W.P. (S) No. 5683 of 2016 =============================================================== Most Parvati Devi, wife of late Mathur Mahto, resident of village Taranari, P.O. Taranari, P.S. Nawadih, District Bokaro ... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro ... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== with W.P. (S) No. 5702 of 2016 =============================================================== Nand Lal Thakur, son of late Patal Chandra Thakur, resident of village Dahiyari, Near Durga Mandir, P.O. Parsabani, P.S. Parsabani, District Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro
4. The Personnel Manager, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Bokaro.
... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== 8 with W.P. (S) No. 5742 of 2016 =============================================================== Most. Kunti Devi, wife of late Hulash Mahto, resident of village Khelcho, P.O. Telo, P.S.Nawadi, District Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro ... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== with W.P. (S) No. 5746 of 2016 =============================================================== Biseshwar Mahato, son of late Parameshwar Mahto, resident of village Papli Kamaldih, P.O. Taranari, P.S. Nawadih, District Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro ... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== 9 with W.P. (S) No. 5851 of 2016 =============================================================== Manik Thakur, son of late Nathuni Thakur, resident of village Harna Basti, P.O. Dumra More, P.S. Dumra, District Dhanbad.
... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro ... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== with W.P. (S) No. 5854 of 2016 =============================================================== Dhirendra Kumar Mahto, son of late Narayan Mahto, resident of village Narra, P.O. & P.S. Narra, Dist. Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro ... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== 10 with W.P. (S) No. 5860 of 2016 =============================================================== Girdhari Mahato, son of late Lalan Mahato, resident of village Budhidih, P.O. Dugda, P.S. Dugda, District Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro ... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== with W.P. (S) No. 5883 of 2016 =============================================================== Sikandar Mahto, son of late Parmanand Mahto, resident of village Fatehpur, P.O. Narra, P.S. Narra, District Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro ... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== 11 with W.P. (S) No. 5884 of 2016 =============================================================== Basudeo Narayan Rajak, son of late Nakul Rajak, resident of village Kurumba, P.O. & P.S. Chandrapura, District Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Bokaro Thermal Power Station, Bokaro
4. The Personnel Manager, Damodar Valley Corporation, Bokaro Thermal Power Station, Bokaro.
... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== with W.P. (S) No. 5885 of 2016 =============================================================== Surendra Manjhi @ Surendra Marandi, son of late Butti Manjhi, resident of village Ghatiyari, P.O. & P.S. Chandrapura, District Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro ... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== 12 with W.P. (S) No. 5965 of 2016 =============================================================== Girdhari Mahto, son of late Bipat Mahato, resident of village Telo, P.O. & P.S. Telo, District Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro.
4. The Personnel Manager, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro.
... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== with W.P. (S) No. 5971 of 2016 =============================================================== Pokhan Prajapati, son of late Maghlal Mahto, resident of village Telo (Kumhar Tola), P.O. Telo, P.S. Nawadih, District Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Bokaro Thermal Power Station, Bokaro.
4. The Personnel Manager, Damodar Valley Corporation, Bokaro Thermal Power Station, Bokaro.
... ... Respondents.
13=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== with W.P. (S) No. 6354 of 2016 =============================================================== Dinesh Prasad, son of late Jagu, resident of village Telo, P.O. Telo, P.S. Telo, District Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Managing Director-cum-Chairman, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata
2. The Director, HRD, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O. & P.S. Ultadanga, Kolkata.
3. The Additional Director of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, Bokaro.
... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== with W.P. (S) No. 5921 of 2016 =============================================================== Prem Chand Rai, son of late Bhola Nath Rai, resident of village Bajrahiya, P.O. Gohpur, District Siwan (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Chairman, having office at DVC Tower, Kolkata-700054.
2. The Director, HRD, having office at DVC Tower (5th Floor), Kolkata-700054.
3. The Personnel Officer, Damodar Valley Corporation, Bokaro Thermal Power Station, P.O., P.S. & District Bokaro.
... ... Respondents.
=============================================================== For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate =============================================================== 14 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK C.A.V. on 01.07.2017 Pronounced on 25/08/2017 Dr. S.N. Pathak, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court with a common prayer for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of Dying in Harness Scheme in the Damodar Valley Corporation (for short "DVC"). FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased, who were the employees of DVC. The father of the petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 5608 of 2016 died in harness on 14.11.1994, whereas most of the employees died mostly during the period 1993, 1994, 1996, 2002, 2011 and 2012. A chart showing the date of death of individual employees, date of making applications for compassionate appointments by the individual writ petitioners, their relationship with the deceased employees, is reproduced herein below for easy reference:-
Sl. Case Number Party Name Date of Date of Relation No. Death Application 01 W.P.(S) No. 5608/2016 Sitaram Mahto Vs. DVC & Ors. 14.11.1994 16.03.2002 Son 02 W.P.(S) No. 4810/2016 Gopinath Thakur Vs. DVC & Ors. 19.08.2003 03.08.2004 Son 03 W.P.(S) No. 4811/2016 Dinesh Mahto Vs. DVC & Ors. 09.05.2012 08.07.2013 Son 04 W.P.(S) No. 4813/2016 Arju Kumar @ Arjun Mahto Vs. 07.01.2012 06.06.2012 Son DVC & Ors.
05 W.P.(S) No. 4814/2016 Tarkeshwar Nath Mahto Vs. DVC 04.05.2011 19.06.2012 Son & Ors.
06 W.P.(S) No. 4815/2016 Sukar Mahto Vs. DVC & Ors. 13.09.2000 26.04.2002 Son 07 W.P.(S) No. 5605/2016 Sahib Ram Manjhi Vs. DVC & 16.05.2002 28.01.2003 Son Ors.
08 W.P.(S) No. 5606/2016 Suresh Singh Vs. DVC & Ors. 28.01.2007 23.08.2007 Son 09 W.P.(S) No. 5607/2016 Jiwan Mahto Vs. DVC & Ors. 21.10.1994 10.12.2002 Son 10 W.P.(S) No. 5609/2016 Sunder Lal Mahto Vs. DVC & 24.05.1997 22.06.1998 Son Ors.
11 W.P.(S) No. 5611/2016 Anant Lal Pandit Vs. DVC & Ors. 22.02.2008 25.08.2008 Son 12 W.P.(S) No. 5612/2016 Murat Singh Vs. DVC & Ors. 29.10.1994 07.12.2002 Son 13 W.P.(S) No. 5683/2016 Most. Parbati Devi Vs. DVC & 20.04.2003 27.09.2003 Wife Ors.
14 W.P.(S) No. 5702/2016 Nand Lal Thakur Vs. DVC & Ors. 05.11.1997 03.12.2002 Son 15 W.P.(S) No. 5742/2016 Most. Kunti Devi Vs. DVC & 04.01.2009 04.07.2009 Wife Ors.
16 W.P.(S) No. 5746/2016 Bishewar Mahto Vs. DVC & Ors. 26.07.2001 08.01.2002 Son 17 W.P.(S) No. 5851/2016 Manik Thakur Vs. DVC & Ors. 01.02.1999 18.08.1999 Son 15 18 W.P.(S) No. 5854/2016 Dhirendra Mahto Vs. DVC & Ors. 27.04.1993 31.10.1996 Son 19 W.P.(S) No. 5860/2016 Girdhari Mahto Vs. DVC & Ors. 24.03.1997 11.12.2013 Son 20 W.P.(S) No. 5883/2016 Sikandar Mahto Vs. DVC & Ors. 26.05.1993 02.02.2012 Son 21 W.P.(S) No. 5884/2016 Basudeo Narayan Rajak Vs. DVC 20.04.2000 19.12.2002 Son & Ors.
22 W.P.(S) No. 5885/2016 Surendra Manjhi Vs. DVC & Ors. 26.04.1996 05.12.2002 Son 23 W.P.(S) No. 5965/2016 Girdhari Mahto Vs. DVC & Ors. 26.04.1996 24.04.1997 Son 24 W.P.(S) No. 5971/2016 Pokhan Prajapati Vs. DVC & Ors. 31.01.2000 18.08.2000 Son 25 W.P.(S) No. 6354/2016 Dinesh Prasad Vs. DVC & Ors. 13.12.1997 12.10.1998 Son 26 W.P.(S) No. 5921/2016 Prem Chand Rai Vs. DVC & Ors. 13.09.2002 20.07.2004 Son
3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Sl. No. 1 to 25, strenuously urges that respondent-DVC has illegally and arbitrarily rejected the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground. The rejection order is not at all tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submits that any appointment on compassionate ground has to be done as per the Scheme. In the instant case, the Scheme floated by the DVC has not been followed in toto. As per the Scheme, a review has to be done regarding appointment on compassionate ground. It has not been brought on record at any point of time that the said Scheme has ever been reviewed. Learned counsel submits that there cannot be any classification regarding death. Death is death and in any type of death, which occurred in harness, the respondents are duty bound to give employment to dependents of the deceased employee, if the Scheme provides for appointment/ employment on account of death in harness. To buttress his argument, learned counsel relied on the following judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court:-
i) Balbir Kaur & Anr. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. [(2000) 6 SCC 493];
ii) Canara Bank & Anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar [(2015) 7 SCC 412];
iii) Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Anr [(2016) 3 SCC 643].
4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha further argued that the cases of the petitioners cannot be thrown-out on the ground that the Scheme is not under challenge. In support of his argument learned counsel has placed reliance on para-29 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Anr (supra), which is reproduced herein below:-
16"29. ...................rules or regulations which are in the nature of subordinate legislation which are ultra vires are bound to be ignored by the courts when the question of their enforcement arises and the mere fact that there is no specific relief sought for to strike down or declare them ultra vires would not stand in the court's way of not enforcing them. We also feel that since this is a question of the very jurisdiction to levy interest and is otherwise covered by a Constitution Bench decision of this Court, it would be a travesty of justice if we would not allow Shri Aggarwal to make this submission."
5. It is been further argued by Mr. Sinha that the affidavit filed by the respondent-DVC is not in accordance with the law and is not fit to be relied upon in view of the fact that nothing has been brought on record that how many persons retired and how many persons died in other factories other than that of the Headquarters. Leaned counsel submits that the respondents have not followed their own policy decision, which amounts to penalizing the petitioners without their own fault. Further reliance has been placed on para- 65 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Cellular Operators Association of India & Ors. Vs. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India & Ors., reported in (2016) 7 SCC 703, which is reproduced herein below:-
"65. In the present case, also, a mandatory penalty is payable by the service provider for call drops that may take place which are not due to its fault, and may be due to the fault of the recipient of the penalty, which is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)."
6. Concluding his argument, Mr. Indrajit Sinha empathetically submitted that the petitioners' case should be considered for appointment on compassionate ground as the respondents have already appointed 25 persons on compassionate ground, which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit and as such, the cases of the petitioners also need consideration. It cannot be said that as there is no vacancy, no appointments can be given to the petitioners. Rather, the affidavit filed by the respondents on this score that they have not given appointment to any person after 1995, is not tenable and falsified.
177. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 5921 of 2016, argues that 416 is the total strength of staff in DVC and presently, 103 vacancies are there and 25% of that has to be considered for compassionate appointment, which comes to a figure of 26, which shows that 26 posts are available for compassionate appointment. Mr. Tandon further argues that specific averments have been made in supplementary counter- affidavit dated 21.06.2017. Mr. Tandon argues that the orders of the High Court dated 18.01.2014 passed in W.P.(S). No. 2517 of 2011, has not been considered by the respondents, by which a specific direction was given to the respondents to take a decision in light of the documents filed by the petitioner in the present proceeding within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order, and as such, the action of the respondents is contemptuous and taking into account the earlier order dated 18.01.2014 and in view of the fact that the respondents have appointed 25 persons on compassionate ground, a direction may be given to consider the cases of the petitioners for their appointment on compassionate ground.
8. The respondent-DVC is represented by Mr. Srijit Choudhary and Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocates. Mr. Choudhary vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the cases of the petitioners for compassionate appointment cannot be considered in view of the fact that it is a belated claim. No appointments can be given after more than 5 years of death. Mr. Choudhary relied on the several judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and argues that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In support of his contention, Mr. Choudhary has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138.
9. Learned counsel further argued that the whole object of giving appointment on compassionate ground is to enable the family of deceased to tide over the sudden crisis and no appointment can be given in absence of any rules or regulations and neither appointments can be given dehors the Scheme. In order to strengthen his argument learned counsel relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in following cases:-
i) Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors., reported in (2008) 15 SCC 560, para-21;
ii) Chief Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Lucknow & Ors.
Vs. Prabhat Singh, reported in (2012) 13 SCC 412, paras-17 & 19.
1810. Mr. Prashant Singh, learned counsel also appearing for the DVC argued that the petitioners have not challenged the circular and hence, it is now not open to challenge the Scheme at this juncture and as such, petitioners are not entitled for consideration of their case for any appointment on compassionate ground. The scheme does not provide for the same and no appointment can be given dehors the rules and as such, no interference is required in the writ petitions as the grievances of the petitioners are not tenable in the eyes of law.
11. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no appointments can be given dehors the Rules. The compassionate appointment is based on scheme. Appointments can be considered only if the scheme provides for such appointment. The compassionate appointment is contrary to Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and is only in the nature of concession and therefore, it does not create a vested right in favour of the petitioners. Dying in Harness Scheme is not a statutory right and is in the form of concession and it does not create aforesaid right in favour of the petitioners to be enforced through a writ of mandamus. The compassionate appointment is not a source of appointment but an exception, and the purpose and object of the scheme is to provide immediate succor to the family of an employee on his death, that may suddenly find itself in state of destitution and the whole object is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. In the present case, the families of the deceased employees have survived for more than 15 years, no compassion is left in these cases and as such, the writ petitions are fit to be dismissed on the ground of gross delay.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Canara Bank & Anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 has held as under:-
"16. ...................
Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind:
(i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as 19 such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme.
(ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time.
(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chief Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Lucknow & Ors. Vs. Prabhat Singh (supra), held as under:-
"17. We are constrained to record that even compassionate appointments are regulated by norms. Where such norms have been laid down, the same have to be strictly followed. Where claims for appointment on compassionate ground, exceed, the available vacancies (which can be filled up by way of compassionate appointment), a selection process has to be adopted by the competent authority. The said process, necessarily has to be fair, and based on a comparative compassion gradient of eligible candidates, or on some such like criterion having a nexus to the object sought to be achieved. In other words, where there are two candidates but only one vacancy is available, there should be a clear, transparent and objective criterion to determine which of the two should be chosen. In the absence of a prescribed criteria, a fair selection process has to be followed, so that, the exercise carried out in choosing one of the two candidates against a solitary available vacancy, can be shown to be based on reason, fair-play and non-arbitrariness.
19. The Courts and Tribunals should not fall prey to any sympathy syndrome, so as to issue directions for compassionate appointments, without reference to the prescribed norms. Courts 20 are not supposed to carry Santa Claus's big bag on Christmas eve, to disburse the gift of compassionate appointment, to all those who seek a court's intervention. Courts and Tribunals must understand, that every such act of sympathy, compassion and discretion, wherein directions are issued for appointment on compassionate ground, could deprive a really needy family requiring financial support, and thereby, push into penury a truly indigent, destitute and impoverished family. Discretion is therefore ruled out. So are, misplaced sympathy and compassion."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. In the present set of cases, the death occurred in the years 1994, 1996, 1997 and in some cases in the year 2009. Much time have elapsed. The families of the deceased employees have survived for more than 10 to 15 years. The settled law which has been reiterated in various cases has been succinctly elucidated in MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 583 and constant view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its various judgments.
14. In view of the settled principles of law and in view of the legal propositions as it may be that such a provision was made as a major of social benefit but it does not laid down a legal principle that Court shall pass an order to that effect despite the fact that the conditions precedents have not been specified.
15. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I am of the considered view that the cases of the petitioners are not tenable in the eyes of law.
16. Resultantly, the writ petitions merit dismissal. No order as to cost.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) kunal/-