1 - Coal India Limited Through Its Chairman, Address- Coal Bhawan, Action Area-1a, New v. 1 - Hitesh Kumar Sahu S/o Haridas Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o C-26
Case Details
1 / 8 2025:CGHC:37431-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 542 of 2025 1 - Coal India Limited Through Its Chairman, Address- Coal Bhawan, Action Area-1a, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata- 700156. 2 - General Manager (Pers) Coal India Limited Address- Coal Bhawan, Action Area- 1a, New Town Rajarahat, Kolkata- 700156 3 - General Manager (E E) South Eastern Coalfields Limited. Address- Seepat Road, Bilaspur - 495006 (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Hitesh Kumar Sahu S/o Haridas Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o C-26 Officer Colony S.E.C.L. Hasdeo Area S-J K D Manendragarh Pin 497448, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate Mr. Vivek Chopda, Advocate (through virtual mode) Hon'ble Shri Shri R Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Hon'ble Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 31/07/2025 Order on Board 1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellants against the impugned order dated 07.04.2025, passed by learned Single Judge, in VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.04 18:11:43 +0530 2 / 8 WPS No. 1224 of 2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to consider for grant him promotion under the Persons with Disabilities (in short ‘PwD’) quota, if he found suitable, and he is also held entitled for notional seniority. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as Management Trainee (OBC/PH) quota in E-2 grade in Coal India Limited on 03.10.2015. After successful completion of training period and qualifying the written test, he was placed in E-3 grade designated as Assistant Manager vide order dated 15.05.2017. The respondent authorities vide order dated 11.05.2021 and 03.09.2021, promoted their Assistant Managers of E-3 grade to the post of Deputy Managers in E-4 grade following the reservation policy of 15% for SC category and 7.5% for ST category employees. However, the guideline of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension with respect to 3% reservation in promotion of PwD employees have not been followed and the petitioner has not been considered for promotion. They have completely ignored the employee of PwD category for promotion. The petitioner has completed 03 years of his service in E-3 category on 28.10.2021 and eligible for promotion, but he has deprived for the same and now he become junior to his batch-mates, but also to his juniors, which is violative of the guidelines of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and pension for promotion. 3. After hearing the parties, on 07.04.2025, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner and directed the 3 / 8 respondent authorities/writ appellants to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion under PwD quota ignoring the office memorandum dated 17.05.2022, if he found suitable and the petitioner is also held entitled for benefit of notional seniority, which is under challenge in the present writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the writ appellants would vehemently submit that, the writ petition itself was not maintainable for want of impleading necessary parties, who are the promoted executives. Granting relief to the petitioner will open flood gate of litigation from similarly situated employees. The learned Single Judge has erroneously held that office memorandum dated 17.05.2022 cannot be applied retrospectively without taking into consideration the first proviso to Section 34(1) of Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (in short ‘RPwD Act, 2016’), which stipulates that reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions issued by the appropriate government from time to time. He would also submit that the notification dated 04.01.2021 was issued under Section 33 of the RPwD Act, 2016, which is restricted only to identification of posts suitable to be filled by PwD candidates, whereas the office memorandum dated 17.05.2022 was issued under Section 34 of RPwD Act, 2016, which specifically relates to reservation in promotion. He would also submit that the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Union of India while exercising its powers under Section 33 of the RPwD Act, 2016 issued a gazette notification on 04.01.2021 identifying the posts in group A, B, C and D, which are suitable to be held by PwD. The 2021 notification is to be read along 4 / 8 with first proviso to Section 34(1) of RPwD Act, 2016 and office memorandum dated 17.05.2022. Section 34 of the Act of 2016 stipulates that the reservation in promotion to PwD employees can be extended only up till the employees of group ‘A’, and therefore, the petitioner not comes under the zone of consideration for promotion under the PwD quota, yet his writ petition is allowed. He prayed for
Decision
setting aside the impugned order and for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is justified and has passed after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable to it, therefore, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials annexed with the writ appeal as well as the writ petition. 7. The grievance of the writ appellants is that the notification dated 04.01.2021 was issued under Section 33 of RPwD Act, 2016, whereas the office memorandum dated 17.05.2022 issued under Section 34 of RPwD Act, 2016, and the notification restricted only to the exercise of identification of posts suitable to be filed by PwD candidates. Although, the learned Single Judge has quoted the provisions of Sections 33 and 34 of RPwD Act, 2016 in its order dated 07.04.2025, but for consideration of the writ appeal, it is necessary to quote here the said provisions, which reads as under:- 5 / 8 “33. Identification of posts for reservation.- The appropriate Government shall- (i) identify posts in the establishments which can be held by respective category of persons with benchmark disabilities in respect of the vacancies reserved in accordance with the provisions of section 34; (ii) constitute an expert committee with representation of persons with benchmark disabilities for identification of such posts; and (iii) undertake periodic review of the identified posts at an interval not exceeding three years. 34. Reservation.- (1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent. of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent. for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e), namely:- (a) blindness and low vision; (b) deaf and hard of hearing; (c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy; (d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness; (e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities: Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time: 6 / 8 Provided further that the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section. (2) Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability: Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government. (3) The appropriate Government may, by notification, provide for such relaxation of upper age limit for employment of persons with benchmark disability, as it thinks fit” 8. While considering the provisions of Sections 33 and 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016, the learned Single Judge has observed in its order that according to the RPwD Act, 2016, the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate government from time to time in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or State Commissioner, as the case may be, may having 7 / 8 regard to the type of work carried out in any government establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any government establishment from the provisions of this Section. In the notification dated 04.01.2021, the posts have been identified and there has been no exemption for a particular group by a separate notification. Though the office memorandum dated 17.05.2022 provides no reservation for PwD candidates in E-4 grade, but the office memorandum has been issued on 17.05.2022, whereas the promotions were made in the year 2021, and thus, the office memorandum dated 17.05.2022 cannot be given retrospective effect. 9. While considering the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has also considered the judgment of “Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and others” 2022 (4) SCC 363 and “Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah” 1997 (6) SCC 623, and has held that such notification having retrospective operation, which has the effect of taking away the benefit of the employee, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge has also discussed that the office memorandum dated 17.05.2022 would have adverse effect on the claim of the petitioner, as the same supersedes the notification dated 04.01.2021, and on the date when the promotions took place, there was no such exemption granted for a particular group by a separate notification. 10. Upon perusing the impugned order, we noticed that the same has been 8 / 8 rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case and the law applicable to it. 11. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the finding recorded by learned Single Judge and the appeal being devoid of merits, liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved