Bharat Lal Agnihotri v. Coal India Ltd.And ORS

^%^^^^^^?s^@^ ;^B:?^i:?^^^L?^^aS,^^ ^IIN THE HIGH CSyURT OF JUDICATURE AT 3IL<-.;;PUR (GG) (;.'•(;.'.

.

" .

.

i W.P.NO. ^Jt?

/2QQ1 PETITlOtUR 31'iaratlal AgnihQfcr.t, s/.o Late shri H.L. Agnihoeri, aged about 46 years, presentlv posted as foreman Incharge.

telectrical), South Sasbern coalfields Limited, Headquarter_s 3ilaspur, DJ.st - Bilaspur(M.».)

VERSUS

1.''

coal India Limited, '

.A Govt of India Undertsking.

through its chatrman, Nefcaji Suohash' P.cad, calcutta (V.3.) ;

RESfONDEIITS 2.^ .aouth Eastern coalf.i.eias Ltd., Through its cbairrnan-cum-Managlng Dlrector, Seepart Road, Bilaspur D-Lstricc - silaspur (CG) ^^ i-T''

-,•'

-^•?1 ..•• ^^^•""

3.''

chief aeneral Manager, - (Personnel & Adninlstrat.lon) South Eastern .coalf.l.elds Llmifced. rSeepst Road, ;

i Bj.laspur (03) ^.

\''^ yETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 227 OF TH3 CONSTJCTUnQN OF INDlA FOR ISSUANGE OP ,'»<RIT OR '/iRI'TS, ORDSR OR t ORDERS, DIRSe'rXON. OR bIRECTIONS ETC ^aa ^

<~~\.

•^T^ -vr ,\\""

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Writ Petition No. 256 of 2001 PETITIONERS Bharatlal Agnihotri (Dead) Through his LRs Smt. Shubha Agnihotri & Others.

VERSUS

Coal India Limited & Others.

RESPOJiDENTS PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Shri Animesh Verma, for the Petitioner. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate for the Respondents. OR D E R ^s^lrs fil|||^"'|3fI:^g^tTtber,,2014)

1. htgiar&dfeSasSrfor the Petitiorier SfiBtBBe fiaspondents. IA No. 4 for ^utsf|stitution of the original Petitioner who is stafafl rto have died on 18.04.2012 by his (^gia|nH^u-s,j;^®(towed.IA No. 5, for CQBHgjHation ofdelay -^ s^ >fGin bringing legal heiry.p^rgc^lljs'also allowed. Let their names be added in the cause title accaEltfll ^"t^t:?yli"fMI .iii^^Jt^i''"%«£

2. Learned counselJEBSMstB&jBHoner submits that he was appointed as Foreman Grade-B)ni|the3West^'j)®balfieldsLimited in the year 1974. After 3;-:. ....,<;,.. ..-^ji.S-^'i completion of training'feBoweffi^rbonfirmation, he earned his first increment in the year 1976 and became eligible to be considered for the next higher grade of Foreman Grade-A in the year 1979. His juniors were promoted in the year 1980 but the Petitioner was denied consideration on the ground that he did not possess supervisory certificate of competency valid for mines issued by the Madhya Pradesh Licensing Boyrd (Electrical), Bhopal. He represented against the same when ultimately he was promoted on 20.04.1989.

In 1993, the Respondents issued a circular inviting representations for any anomalies in the gradation list. Pursuant to the representation filed by the Petitioner and others a formal general order was Irt

issued on 01.04.1996. The Petitioner was granted notional seniority upto T&S Grade-A from the due date with notional fixation but without arrears of monetary benefits.

In this writ application, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he confines the grievance to non-grant of consequential monetary benefits pursuant to fixation of notional seniority from the due date. It is fairiy acknowledged that the original Petitioner has expiredon 18.04.2012.

S.Learned Counsel for the Respondents ,has opposed the application submitting inordinate delay.

4. NotioBgi^ifia|fi,wSs!!gi"aF)f&d tijaBNS^Ieased Petitioner on 01.04.1996 ,wi1||ia3§specific condition that no monetary beh8f|^,i|would be given. The iBenial of retrospectiy&.ragR^t^ryfbenefits was not aVBiUwus cause of action from month"fi^:|r)%nitti;|[t iyalary. In the latter case, the cause of action would accrue ftEiIftgiWffJSWh to another every time when salary was denied. The present W^S.^MSB fbr payment of arrears in lump sum. In other words, it was,-aS:iT8iifflgsfii%itti., The limitation for enforcement of the same would be a p8risSi330i;Ucee"years from 01.04.1996. Mere filing of ^;^:;". .^:^-i:;??';5iSS.- ^'^^^^'•ss^'

representations canndt B^ sijfficient explanation for delay unless legal remedy was being pursued. The institution of the writ petition for that relief in the year 2001 was therefore beyond period of three years.

The extraordinary jurisdiction could not have been invoked when even a money suit would have been barred for the claim. The Petitioner have themselves to be blame for not having been vigilant in protection and enforcement of rights.

5.1n conclusion, the writ application is dismissed. Sd/- ActingChiefJustice