Jharkhand High Court
Kanika Sarkar vs The Union Of India on 24 July, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:20372
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 646 of 2024
Kanika Sarkar, Aged about 58 years, Wife of Late Ramu Sarkar,
Resident of 2/131, C.I.M.F.R. Colony, Digwadih, P.O.- F.R.I., P.S.-
Jorapokhar, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
.....Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Science &
Technology, Government of India, At Technology Bhavan, New
Mehrauli Road, New Delhi-110016, P.O. Hauz Khas, New Delhi,
P.S. Mehrauli, District- South Delhi, State -Delhi.
2. The Director General, CSIR-cum-Secretary, Department of
Scientific and Industrial Research, At Technology Bhavan, New
Mehrauli Road, New Delhi-110016, P.O. Hauz Khas, New Delhi,
P.S. Mehrauli, District-South Delhi, State-Delhi.
3. The Director, CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel
Research, Barwa Road, Digwadih Campus Dhanbad, P.O.- CMRI
Bartand, Dhanbad, P.S.-Barwadda, Dhanbad, Districrt-
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
4. The Administrative Officer, Central Institute of Mining and Fuel
Research, Barwa Road, Digwadih Campus, Dhanbad, P.O.-CMRI
Bartand, Dhanbad, P.S.-Barwadda, Dhanbad, District-
Dhanbad, Jharkhand ...... Respondents.
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
--
For the Petitioner(s) : M/s. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, Gaurav Priyadarshi, Twinkle Rani, Advocates For the Resp.Nos. 3 & 4 : M/s. Abhay Prakash, Durgesh Agarwal, Advocates
--
02/24.07.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner for the following reliefs:
A. For quashing the Letter No. CIMFR/
Retention/Estate/05/1964dated 16/21/23-9-
2021(Annexure-2) issued by Administrative Officer CSIR- CIMFR, Respondent no.4 whereby and whereunder the Respondent No.4 issued the Last Memorandum Letter and informed the Petitioner that allotment of quarter is going to reject with effect from 5/03/2019 and the occupancy will be treated as Unauthorized Retention and due to not vacating the quarter till the vacating the quarter, the Panel Resident Licence Fee Rs. 8089 per month will be realized along with electric and water supply charge and the same will be realized from the Death Gratuity.
B. Petitioner further prays for quashing the Letter No.- CIMFR/ Retention/Estate/05/2022/400 dated 11/12/05/2022 (Annexure-3) issued by Administrative Officer CSIR-CIMFR, Respondent no.4 whereby and whereunder the Respondent No. 4 without properly considering the application filed by daughter of the Petitioner namely Ms Supriya Sarkar with respect to the waiving of Panel Licence Fee, rejecting the application and mentioning that "HAC recommends that the applicant (Ms. Supriya Sarkar) should either vacate the quarter No. 1 2025:JHHC:20372 II/131 of Digwadih Campus or to pay the penal Licence Fee as per prevailing rule.
C. Petitioner further prays for quashing the Letter No.- CIMFR/Retention/Estate/2022 dated 19/04/2023 (Annexure-4) whereby whereunder the Respondent No.-4 erroneously calculated the Rs 4,97,153 (Rs. Four Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousands One Hundred Fifty Three) as penal Licence Fee and other fee against the Petitioner's occupancy quarter and informing the Petitioner that the said amount will be recovered from the Death Gratuity. D. Petitioner further prays that if the amount Rs. 4,97,153 is recovered from the Death Gratuity of the Petitioner, the Hon'ble Court may direct the Respondents to make payment the said amount in favour of the Petitioner without any delay.
3. A preliminary objection has been raised in Para-5 of the counter affidavit indicating therein that the writ application is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner is having alternative and efficacious remedy by filing an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
4. After going through the prayer made in the instant writ application, it is clear that lis between the parties is with regard to allotment of quarter which was in relation to her service rendered by the Petitioner before the Respondents; as such, there is no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it is the service dispute; accordingly the Petitioner is having no jurisdiction before this Court in view of Section 14(2) read with Section 14(3) of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985; inasmuch as, any dispute with regard to service matters relating to the CSIR is to be raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal as notified by Notification dated 31.10.1986.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid factual position, the instant writ application is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise her grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal, if so advised.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) jk 2