Niraj Kumar Singh vs National Institute of Technology

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 90

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Niraj Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
National Institute of Technology and Others – Respondents
L.P.A. No. 454 of 2012
Decided On : 16-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anil Kumar Sinha.
For the Respondents: Rajiv Sinha, Shreesha Sinha.

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14, 16 – Contract Act, 1872 – Section 17 – Order of termination – Court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against order/judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) whereby and whereunder, writ petition has been dismissed refusing to interfere with order of termination – Held, Court, after having discussed fact in entirety, as above and considering argument advance on behalf of appellant that appointment so made in favour of writ petitioner since has attained its finality, order of termination cannot be said to be just and proper, which according to our considered view, cannot be said to be acceptable as per reasons referred hereinabove – Since, writ petitioner has got appointment by suppression of fact by giving wrong declaration by filing an affidavit claiming himself to be grandson and basis upon which, if show cause notice has been issued asking explanation as to why his services be not terminated and if service has been terminated, same cannot be said to suffer from an error – Writ petitioner himself has admitted, as would appear from impugned order that he is not the real grandson and as such, in that view of matter, if learned Single Judge, has refused to interfere with impugned order, same cannot be said to suffer from an error – Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 11.09.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2378 of 2005, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed refusing to interfere with the order of termination.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder.

3. The writ petitioner claims to be the grandson of the deceased employee late B.P. Sinha who died in harness on 17.06.1986 leaving behind his widow Smt. Vidya Devi and one son Mr. Ashutosh Kumar who was one year and three months old at the time of death of his father.

4. Smt. Vidya Devi, widow of late B.P. Sinha made an application before the Principal, RIT, Jamshedpur for compassionate appointment of Niraj Kumar Singh-petitioner by showing him as her grandson.

5. A separate application has also been filed by Smt. Vidya Devi showing the petitioner-Niraj Kumar Singh as her grandson seeking compassionate appointment for him.

6. The writ petitioner-Niraj Kumar Singh was provided job in the RIT, Jamshedpur on daily wages in the year 1987 on compassionate ground. On 10.09.2001, Smt. Vidya Devi filed an affidavit stating that her grandson Niraj Kumar Singh who was given compassionate appointment on daily wages be taken in regular service on account of death of her husband.

7. A separate affidavit was also filed by the writ petitioner that late B.P. Sinha was his grandfather and there was no case pending against him and he was never convicted in any criminal case, therefore, his services may be regularized.

8. The respondent, on the basis of the application and affidavits so moved before the Board of Governors, confirmed the services of Niraj Kumar Singh by taking him under regular establishment.

9. Smt. Vidya Devi, the widow of late B.P. Sinha, has filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6058 of 2001 seeking compassionate appointment in favour of her son Ashutosh Kumar. But the said writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.01.2002, wherein, this Court has observed all the undisputed facts and denied the compassionate appointment in favour of Ashutosh Kumar saying that on the date of his father's death, i.e. 17.06.1986, he was one year old and on the request of Smt. Vidya Devi, widow of late B.P. Sinha, compassionate appointment was given to Niraj Kumar Singh, the petitioner.

10. The order passed in W.P. (S) No. 6058 of 2001 was challenged by the petitioner by filing L.P.A. No. 126 of 2002 but the same was dismissed. The further fact of the case is that one Mithilesh Kumar seeking compassionate appointment has filed a writ petition alleging therein that irregularities being committed in the matter of appointment on compassionate ground by filing the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 680 of 2002 which was disposed of on 24.01.2002, by which, the direction was passed that if one or other persons have been given appointment after long delay of about 12 years of death in the recent past, say within last 1 year or some person has been appointed illegally by giving wrong information, the petitioner may bring the same to the notice of the Principal RIT, Jamshedpur, who will take care. It was also directed that in such case, if any illegality was found in the matter of such appointment, the authority after notice to the concerned party may pass an appropriate order.

11. The respondent RIT has proceeded to examine the legality and propriety of the appointment, for which, a Committee was constituted and the Committee has found on due deliberation and after hearing the petitioner that the appointment made on compassionate ground is not in pursuance to the Scheme, since, the petitioner is not a real grandson of the deceased employee late B.P. Sinha.

12. Show cause notice has been issued asking the explanation as to why the services of the writ petitioner may not be termin