R Mukhopadhyay vs Coal India Ltd. and Another

Hon''ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J

Mr. Mukhopadhyay, appearing in person submits that the petitioner is not personally aggrieved by the office memorandum dated January 14th, 1998, however, aggrieved by the order dated 22.05.2008 (Annexure P-2) to the extent that the petitioner has made a representation in representative capacity and the same has been rejected. On perusal of the pleadings and fair admission of Mr. Mukhopadhyay, it is a case where the petitioner is seeking redressal of grievances of the widows of the officers who had been working in the respondent company.

Be that as it may, it is a well settled principles of law that no service matter in public interest, is maintainable in a representative capacity, if the other persons on whose behalf the petitioner is filing the petition, are aggrieved, they may approach the Court directly, as it is a question of payment of gratuity to the dependents of the employees, who had been working with the respondent company.

The petitioner submits that the dispute arose when he was working as General Secretary of the Coalmines Officers Association and, as such, he is competent and has locus to deal with the issue and in that capacity he filed a writ petition in the year 1999 being W.P. No. 3402/1999, wherein, while disposing of the writ petition, a liberty was reserved to the petitioners that, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, they may approach the Court once again.

The contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the instant petition is being filed pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in W.P. No. 3402/1999, cannot confer a locus on the petitioner, as when the petitioner filed this petition, he was the General Secretary; secondly, liberty reserving to the petitioners, means liberty to the aggrieved persons, not to third party. It does not mean that the writ petition as public interest litigation is maintainable in service matter.

The Supreme Court, in D. Nagaraj & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others1, observed as under:

The sole question that requires to be determined in these appeals is whether the appellants could maintain the aforesaid writ petitions. It does not describe the classes of persons entitled to apply thereunder, the existence of the right is implicit for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction by the High Court under the said Article. It is also well established that a person who is not aggrieved by the discrimination complained of cannot maintain a writ petition.

The Supreme Court, in R.K. Jain v. Union of India2, observed as under:

In service jurisprudence it is settled law that it is for the aggrieved person i.e. non-appointee to assail the legality of the offending action. Third party has no locus standi to canvass the legality or correctness of the action. Only public law declaration would be made at the behest of the petitioner, a public-spirited person.

(Also see: Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Others3, Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Others4 and B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees'' Assn. and Others5, Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Others6, Girjesh Shrivastava & Other v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others7).

Further, in Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. & Others8, the Supreme Court observed as under:

Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where a writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries are caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases.

Applying the well settled principles of law, as aforestated, to the facts of the instant case, the instant writ petition is not maintainable as being in the nature of public interest litigation. In view of foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the aggrieved persons may individually approach the Court, if so advised, in accordance with law.