CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED Vs. N.VELAYUDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8.8.2003 passed in W.P. (C) No. 6088 of 2001 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was disposed of holding that the writ petitioner is entitled to honorarium for the period June, 2000 to May, 2001.

(2.) THE petitioner -respondent filed a writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents - appellants for a direction for payment of honorarium -cum -salary for the services rendered by him in terms of letter dated 20.6.2000. The petitioner's case was that on or about 15.12.1982, he was appointed on the post of Security Officer under the respondents -C.C.L. and later on promoted to the post of Senior Security Inspector in 1990. He superannuated from the services on 20.6.2000. It was stated that after retirement, a proposal was made by the Chief of Security, C.C. L. for rendering training to 700 security personnel for a period of one year on honorarium basis fixing a sum of Rs. 3000.00 per month. Such proposal was made by the Director of the appellants -Central Coalfields Ltd, who in turn, while concurring the proposal of Chief of Security, sent the record to the Chairman - cum -Managing Director on 5.6.2000. According to the writ petitioner, the said proposal was approved by the Chairman -cum -Managing Director. The petitioner's case was that on the basis of decision of the Management, a letter dated 20.6.2000 was issued offering him to serve as a Trainer on a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 3000.00 per month for a period of one year. In terms of the letter; the petitioner said to have tendered his acceptance vide letter dated 20.6.2000. Accordingly, the petitioner alleged to have been engaged as a trainer in CCL Headquarter, Ranchi and he trained 562 security personnel in the year 2000 -2001. The writ petitioner's further case was that he was not paid a single farthing for such training duty.

(3.) THE main question that falls for consideration is whether the writ petitioner, pursuant to the approval of his appointment as trainer, was engaged and he conducted training for the period in question. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of annexure -4, held that the petitioner - respondent was allowed to work from 26.6.2000 to 22.5.2001. From perusal of annexure -4 to the writ petition, it appears that it mentions the dates only during which the training programme was conducted in the year 2000 -2001. In this connection, paragraphs -11 & 12 of the writ petition are worth to be quoted herein below: 11. That accordingly, the petitioner was engaged as Trainer in CCL, Headquarters, Ranchi. He rendered training to 562 security personnel in the year 2000 -2001. He has prepared a chart showing the details of such period of training. 12. That it would not be out of place to mention here that although a sum of Rs. 3000.00 was fixed as honorarium payable to the petitioner in lieu of his services rendered as Trainer pursuant to Annexure -2 issued on the basis of a not sheet as contained in Annexure -1, but the petitioner has not been paid a farthering for such training.