RAMJI MAHTO SON OF LATE GANAURI MAHTO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The challenge in the present appeal under Clause-X of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court is to the order dated 04.09.2013 passed by the learned Single Bench in which C.W.J.C. No. 13312 of 2009, filed by the respondents no. 1 and 2, has been allowed and the order dated 06.04.2009 passed in B.S.E. Case No. 14 of 2001 by the Labour Court and the authority under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, Patna has been quashed.

(3.) The appellant was an employee under the Bihar State Electricity Board, as it then was (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') on 13.11.1984 as a Muster Roll employee on the basis of representation made before the Board for his appointment on compassionate ground claiming that his father, who was in service of the Board, had died on 27.08.1983. The authorities directed him to submit the death certificate of his father along with fitness certificate and relationship certificate etc. for verification. The same was not submitted by the appellant and he continued in service. When the Board took a policy decision to regularize all Muster Roll Workmen, who had worked for more than a year, documents were called from all Area Board Offices for verification. During the said enquiry, it was found that the appellant had submitted a false affidavit, stating that his father died while being in service, for getting appointment on compassionate ground. The appellant was, thus, disengaged with effect from 23.08.2001. The appellant then filed an application under Sec. 26 (2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'B.S.E. Act') challenging such disengagement/dismissal from the service of the Board before the Labour Court, Patna. The case was finally decided in favour of the appellant by order dated 06.04.2009 which was impugned by the Board in C.W.J.C. No. 13312 of 2009. The writ petition having been allowed in favour of the Board, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.