Uma Shankar Sah vs The State of Jharkhand, The State Disability Commissioner and The Managing Director

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.—The petitioner has prayed:

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction(s) for payment of retrial benefits like gratuity with interest and to consider compassionate appointment to his son.

(ii) For issuance of writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction(s) for allotment of owned possessed Quarter No. 2001 in Sector 4-A, Street-3, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, to handicapped Employee No. 421264 (petitioner) on honorarium basis and to facilitate the expenses of new Artificial Right Leg with adequate compensation.

The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner met with an accident on 28.09.1975. He had served for more than 30 years and superannuated from service on 30.09.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that the company provided a quarter on priority basis in Sector 4-A, Street 3, Bokaro Steel City with an assurance that employment assistance would be provided to one of the wards on compassionate ground, so that for rest of his life, he can properly maintain himself.

The petitioner has brought on record the injury report and the handicapped certificates dated 30.01.1976 and 09.03.2006. Reliance has been placed on the circular dated 12.09.1988 also. The petitioner issued legal notice, however, none of his grievances were redressed and therefore, he has moved this Court seeking relief as noticed above.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a plea that the petitioner was given an assurance and as per the circular of the company, the petitioner is entitled for allotment of quarter on, out of turn basis. He has further submitted that the amount of the gratuity has not been paid to the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submitted that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed summarily.

The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been clearly stated that there is no scheme for compassionate appointment to one of the dependents for future maintenance and proper attendance of the employee who had suffered disability during the course of his employment. The document filed alongwith the counter-affidavit would indicate that the petitioner himself executed a bond whereby he agreed that an amount equivalent to the gratuity amount would be withheld and kept as security in lieu of the retention of the official quarter. He has further submitted that these facts have not been disclosed by the petitioner, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts.

On a perusal of the writ petition, it is disclosed that the petitioner has himself made a statement in para-6 that he has been given an assurance that one of his dependents would be provided appointment on compassionate basis, so that for the rest of his life, he can maintain himself. It has further been stated in paragraph No. 13:

That it is stated and submitted that the respondents have not considered the scheme for compassionate appointment of one of his wards for future maintenance as well as proper attendance of the petitioner.

I further find that the respondents have taken a specific plea that there is no scheme for providing the compassionate appointment to the wards of the employee who suffered disability during the course of employment for maintaining himself. It has further been stated that an amount equivalent to the amount of gratuity has been retained and for that purpose an agreement has been executed by the petitioner himself. I find that the petitioner has made false statements on Oath and suppressed material facts which are necessary for adjudicating the claim of the petitioner.

In Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under,

It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.

In K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under,

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no can did disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.

In Oswal Fats and Oils Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and Others, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under,

This Court and different High Courts have repeatedly invoked and applied the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be heard on the merits of his grievances--State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd., Vijay Kumar Kathuria (Dr.) v. State of Haryana, Welcome Hotel v. State of A.P., G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane, Union of India v. Muneesh Suneja, Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI, Sunil Poddar v. Union Balk of India, K.D. Sharma, SAIL, G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Dalip Singh v. State of U.P.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of suppression of the material facts.