Disputed questions of fact regarding the petitioner's identity and initial appointment led to the setting aside of the judgment and the allowance for further adjudication based on oral and documentary evidence.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Appellant, Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘BCCL’) has challenged the impugned judgment dated 16.09.2009, passed by learned Single Judge, whereunder, respondents-BCCL was directed to assess and pay the entire retiral benefits accrued in the account of the petitioner, within a period of three months together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date it was payable to the petitioner till it was finally paid. Furthermore, the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner’s claim for grant of employment to his dependent son in the light of the petitioner’s eligibility under NCWA and also in the light of the appointment letter issued to the petitioner’s son earlier.

3. Writ petitioner approached this Court, inter alia, pleading that he was initially appointed as a Timber Mistry in Ghanudih Colliery under the BCCL on 12.01.1964. His service record was opened and statement of particulars of his service records containing his name, date of birth, post held, date of appointment, CMPF number and list of dependants were given to him on 10.09.1997, as referred in his service record. On being found medically unfit, he was separated from service and in the year 1993, he was asked by this employer-BCCL to collect his gratuity and CMPF dues. After his separation from service, he sought employment of his dependant son, namely, Vijay Kumar Singh, in terms of clause-10.4.3 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-II (NCWA-II). Respondents-BCCL offered appointment to his son as a Piece Rated Employee, vide letter dated 04.01.1995, but, he was refused joining. Petitioner was later on informed that his retiral benefits have been withheld on account of the detection of a difference in the name of his father on the ground of some dispute regarding his parentage and identity and the matter is pending enquiry.

4. Respondents had pleaded that after the petitioner had retired from service, a complaint was received by way of a legal notice from Md. Azarail Ansari, Advocate of Dhanbad Court, stating that his client Baijnath Singh, son of Late Tribhuban Singh, resident of English Dhakni, District-Bhojpur was a permanent employee in Ghanudih Colliery and that his provident fund number is C/340394. The said employee had gone to his native village, but, after he returned from his native village on expiry of his leave, he was not allowed to join his duty. In his absence, another person representing himself to be Baijnath Singh, son of Ruplal Singh, Chouparan, Hazaribagh had impersonated his client and illegally substituted himself for the original employee. Respondents also pleaded that during enquiry, it was revealed that one Damodar Singh, own brother of the writ petitioner, had admitted before the Vigilance Officer that his brother had been working in the colliery by impersonating the original employee. There was discrepancy in the permanent address as referred to in Form-B Register vis-à-vis the service book and provident fund record. The address given in Form-A, as furnished by the employee at the time of entry in service, tallied with the address of the original Baijnath Singh as mentioned in the legal notice. The name and age of wife of Baijnath Singh, as disclosed in the Form-A prepared in 1964, did not tally with the service excerpts prepared in 1987. Respondents-BCCL defended their stand as according to them there was reasonable belief that the petitioner was not the original employee and he had continued to remain in employment by practicing fraud and deception upon the employer.

5. Learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and material pleadings on record, observed that the purported vigilance enquiry was conducted entirely behind the back of the petitioner and that too, after his retirement from service. The petitioner was neither informed about such enquiry nor was called upon to explain the matter and affirm