ANAND MUNDA v. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS
Court: High Court of Jharkhand
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Jharkhand judgment dated 2020-06-30. ANAND MUNDA v. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS. Read the...
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 7567 of 2013 Anand Munda, s/o late Sudhan Pahan, District Ranchi .. … Petitioner Versus 1. Central Coalfields Ltd. , through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, District Ranchi 2. The Chief General Manager, Central Coalfields Ltd. , Dakra Colliery, District Ranchi 3. Senior Personnel Officer, C. C. L. Office of the Project Officer, Churi, District Ranchi. 4. Project Officer, /Agent, CCL, Churi Colliery, Office of the Project Officer, Churi, District Ranchi ..... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate --------- 09/30. 06. 2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties through VC. 2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing the officer order no. 581-93 dated 28. 4. 2007 issued under the signature of Project Officer, Churi Colliery (Respondent No.
4) whereby the father of the petitioner has been removed from service with effect from 28. 04. 2007 without considering the entire material available on record as father of the petitioner has already died on 23. 9. 2006, i. e. much before the impugned order was passed. A prayer has also been made for a direction upon the respondents to pay all the death-cum-retiral benefits to the petitioner. 3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to file a fresh representation before respondent No. 4 regarding payment of admissible retiral benefits in connection with the deceased employee. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents does not have any objection to the aforesaid contention of the petitioner. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, without going into the merits of the case, I, hereby, dispose of the instant writ application with a liberty to the petitioner to file a -2- fresh representation before the respondent No.
4 raising his entire grievance. 6. If such representation is preferred before respondent No. 4, same shall be decided with a reasoned order in accordance with law, rules, regulations and policy decisions of the respondent company. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the instant application is disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J. ) sm/
Source: High Court of Jharkhand. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.