Gauhati High Court
Rupan Gope vs Jugal Kumar Borah on 30 May, 2022
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010211252019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/530/2019
RUPAN GOPE
S/O- LT. SUDHIR GOPE, R/O- VILL.- MARGHERITA, P.O. AND P.S.
MARGHERITA, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM. PIN- 786181.
VERSUS
JUGAL KUMAR BORAH
THE GENERAL MANAGER NEC, COAL INDIA LIMITED, P.O. AND P.S.-
MARGHERITA, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM. PIN- 786181.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I A TALUKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M Z AHMED
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 30-05-2022 Heard Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents.
Page No.# 2/6
2. By filing this contempt petition under section 12 and 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Contempt of Court (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1977, the petitioner has alleged willful disobedience of the order dated 14.12.2018, passed by this Court in WP(C) 7388/2017.
3. In the writ petition, the case of the petitioner was that his mother was serving in the post of peon in the Medical Department of Coal India Limited Hospital, Margherita. It was projected that as per the Coal India Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2014 (Revised), the mother of the petitioner had applied for her voluntary retirement as she was suffering from some medical condition and in lieu thereof, she had sought for the appointment of her own son i.e. the petitioner, under the said scheme. Accordingly, the petitioner had appeared for his medical test before the IME Board on 05.03.2015, and he was found fit for employment in the Coal Mines of Coal India Limited.
4. The plea of the respondents is that the name of the petitioner was wrongly recorded as "Ropen Gope" which was corrected as "Rupan Gope", the Court was of the view that such change was a minor one and was not substantial so as to doubt the genuineness of the identity of the petitioner and the discrepancies of the date of birth mentioned as 23.04.1989 was corrected as 31.12.1989, and taking into account the contention of the petitioner, order dated 14.12.2018, was passed to the following effect:-
"16. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed with the direction to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment under the aforesaid scheme by treating an application to have been submitted to the authorities within the aforesaid period of six months and if the petitioner is found medically fit and the petitioner is eligible in all other aspects the respondent authority shall appoint him.
Page No.# 3/6
17. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken by the authorities within a period of 3 (three) months from today."
5. The petitioner has projected that the order of this Court dated 14.12.2018, along with his representation was sent by registered post to the respondent authorities on 28.12.2018, and as the order was not complied with, the present contempt petition was filed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, a reply dated 27.08.2019 by the Area Manager (Personnel), NEC, CIL, Margherita has been enclosed as Annexure-C, and from its contents, it appears that the respondent authorities were sitting in appeal over the order dated 14.12.2018 of this Court, and the candidature of the petitioner was rejected by taking a ground which was not the pleaded case of the respondents in the connected writ petition.
7. It is stated that as per the said communication dated 27.08.2019, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his mother was engaged with the designation of peon, Gr.H., and was an employee in Technical grade as per the Job Nomenclature/ Cadre scheme and therefore, it was held that the petitioner was not eligible under the scheme.
8. It is submitted that the second reason for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner was that the scheme was valid only for 6(six) months w.e.f. 26.11.2014 to 25.05.2015, and accordingly, it was not possible to appoint the petitioner as a dependent under the said scheme, which had been lapsed.
Page No.# 4/6
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that if the scheme had lapsed there was no reason for the respondents to make the petitioner undergo medical test, where he was found fit to be engaged in the coal mines of the respondents. It is also submitted that by reply dated 27.08.2019, the respondents are trying to evade their responsibility from complying with the order of this Court. It is also submitted that as the order dated 14.12.2018 was passed in presence of the parties, and the respondents have not referred any appeal or review, the respondent authorities are required to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 14.12.2018, and to appoint the petitioner under the hereinbefore referred scheme.
10. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2014 (Revised) was valid from 26.11.2014 to 25.05.2015. Moreover, as per the contents of the said scheme, the coverage was only for those regular/ permanent female employees of Coal India Limited and its subsidiary companies, who were deployed in non-technical jobs.
11. The learned senior counsel for the respondents has referred to the book named "Nomenclature, Job Description and Categorisation of Coal Employees", which was published by the Institute for Miners' & Metalworkers' Education (Annexure-B to the affidavit-in-opposition), to project that the job description of peon is at Sl. No.10 of Heading (E) Watch & Ward Staff, Security Personnel and Office Peons and the said post is categorized under the Heading- II Technical & Supervisory Staff (Page 11 and 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition). Thus, as per the job description, a 'peon' was a 'technical' personnel. However, Page No.# 5/6 the voluntary retirement scheme was not for technical personnel.
12. It is submitted that the Court had categorically directed to appoint the petitioner, if he was found to be medically fit and was eligible in all aspects. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the mother of the petitioner was a technical staff, she was not entitled for voluntary retirement in lieu of the job for the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the respondent authorities had rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner by communication dated 27.08.2019. Moreso, on the ground that as the scheme was there only for a limited 6(six) months' period w.e.f. 26.11.2014 to 25.05.2015.
13. In view of the defence taken by the respondents, that the period of scheme had already lapsed and that in the Coal India Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2014 (Revised), was only applicable for permanent/ regular female employees of Coal India Limited and its subsidiary companies who are deployed in non-technical jobs, and that the learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to demonstrate that the post of peon was designated as a non-technical staff, the Court is of the considered opinion that the consideration of the candidature of the petitioner by the respondents was a substantial compliance to the order of this Court, and that there was no willful or deliberate disobedience or non-compliance of the order of the Court.
14. Nonetheless, there has been some delay in complying with the order of this Court dated 14.12.2018 in WP(C) 7388/2017. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner was not found entitled to be appointed under the hereinbefore referred scheme, the delay in disposal of the Page No.# 6/6 representation in terms of the order of this Court dated 14.12.2018, would be of no consequence.
15. Accordingly, this Contempt petition stands dismissed, as no case of willful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court has been made out.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant