KULDIP CHOUHAN Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner was transferred to Sijua Area by order dated 23/24.2.2001 (Annexure -2). Upon perusal of the order of transfer it is evident that the petitioner was functioning as a Clerk Special Grade on 8.3.2001, the petitioner was released from the South Balihari Colliery so as to enable him to join at his transferred place. This fact is evident from the office order dated 5/6.3.2001 as contained in Annexure -3 and here also the petitioner is described as Clerk Special Grade. On the same day i.e. on 8.3.2001, the petitioner gave his joining before the General Manager of Sijua Area vide Annexure -4. It is evident that on 1.6.2001 by Annexure -5, the petitioner was then directed by the Deputy General Personnel Manager, Sijua Area to go and give his joining before the Project Officer of Nichitpur Collier. It is just after that on 4/6.6.2001 by Annexure -7, the Project Officer of Nichitpur Colliery informed the Deputy General Personnel Manager, apparently in reply to the office order dated 1.6.2001 (Annexure -5) that there was no vacancy and therefore, the petitioner should be posted somewhere else in Sijua area. However, on 12.6.2001, the petitioner gave his joining before the Project Officer, Nichitpur Colliery vide Annexure -6. It appears that even after he gave his joining, the concerned respondents, for some reason or the other did not assign any work and did not pay salary to him as a result whereof the petitioner filed two representations vide Annexures -8 and 9. Thereafter, vide an order, dated 12/14.3.2002, the Project Officer of Nichitpur Colliery informed the petitioner that he was remaining absent since 2.7.2001.

(3.) IN view of nature of the reply given in relation to specific assertion of the writ petitioner, it cannot be said that what the petitioner has said in paragraph 27 is incorrect. Moreover, the fact that the petitioner was assigned the job on a lower grade stands established from the documents brought on record by the respondents themselves vide Annexure -C which is apparently a representation of the petitioner on 8.10.2001 wherein he has stated that although he had given his joining on 12.6.2001 yet the Project Officer had assigned duty of a Tipper Munsi to him from 2.7.2001 and since this was not according to his grade and/or designation, he had refused to work after having given information repeatedly to the General Manager seeking his intervention. The conduct of the petitioner therefore cannot be said to be unjustified. Moreover, at paragraph 26 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that ".......... the petitioner after submitting his joining, performed the duties".