Abdul Rahman aged about 65 years, Son of Late Abdul Gafur, Resident of B v. 1. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Through the Chairman Cum Managing Director, Office at Koyla
Case Details
2025:JHHC:35417 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 4955 of 2018 --------- Abdul Rahman aged about 65 years, Son of Late Abdul Gafur, Resident of B. N. R. Basti, Nadi Dhowra, P. O.- Kustore, P.S. - ....Petitioner Kenduwadih, District - Dhanbad. Versus 1. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Through the Chairman Cum Managing Director, Office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. - Saraidhela, District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 2. Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. - Koyla Nagar, P.S. - Saraidhela, District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 3. General Manager (P & IR), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad, P.O. - Koyla Nagar, P.S. - Saraidhela, District -Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 4. Personnel Manager (MP & R), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 5. Dy. Personnel Manager (MP & R), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 6. Deputy General Manager (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. -Saraidhela, District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 7. Chief Manager (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Office at Koyla Bhawan, P.Ο. - Koyla Nagar, P.S. - Saraidhela, District - ....Respondents Dhanbad (Jharkhand) ---------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioners --------- : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate Ms. Sushmita Kumari, Advocate Mr. Faisal Allam, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate C.A.V. ON: 08.10.2025 Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Pratyush, Advocate --------- PRONOUNCED ON: 27/11/2025 1. 2. Heard learned counsels for the parties. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for following reliefs: “For issuance of an appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions specially in the nature of certiorari quashing the reasoned order dated 10.3.2018 passed by Respondent no. 3 1 2025:JHHC:35417 whereby and whereunder the facts submitted by the department regarding the Petitioner's deployment in the work of category I and in the absence of none submission of any proof by the Petitioner in respect of his promotion to category V or proof of working in category V, the general manager was of the view that the claim of the Petitioner that he was entitled for category V wages was not justified and his representation was disposed off in light of the directions given by the Hon'ble Jharkhand high court in WPS no. 1969/2017. For issuance of an appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions commanding upon the respondent authorities to pay the arrears of difference of salary/wages for the period December 1982 to 31.01.2007 by treating him Category V employee instead of Category I employee because during that period Petitioner has worked in the post of Motor Winder and category for that post is Category V; For issuance of an appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions commanding upon the respondent authorities to pay him the difference of retirement benefits such as Gratuity, Provident fund, Leave Encashment because after retirement Respondents have paid him above dues by treating him an employee of Category I but he was working as Motor Winder which is Category V post; For issuance of an appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions commanding upon the respondent authorities to take a final decision regarding claim of Petitioner regarding Category V from the date of his reinstatement in the month of December 1982 in the post of Motor Winder and thereafter pay the admissible benefits to Petitioner; For issuance of an appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions commanding upon the respondent authorities to pay statutory interest of 10% per annum upon the amount payable to the Petitioner and further direction be issued to make payment of Rs. 50000/- for harassing the Petitioner and inviting unnecessary litigations.” 3. From record it appears that the Petitioner has moved earlier before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1969 of 2017 wherein the petitioner was directed to file fresh representation. For brevity, relevant portion of the order dated 07.08.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1969 of 2017 is extracted hereinbelow: “ The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for payment of arrears of difference of salary for the period December, 1982 to 31.01.2007 by treating him Category-V employee instead of Category I employee as the petitioner has worked in the post of Motor Winder i.e. Category V post. ........ ........ In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and as already there was a direction of the Industrial Dispute Tribunal to file fresh representation before the concerned authorities, mentioning the entire details, I hereby direct the respondents to consider the 2 2025:JHHC:35417 case of the petitioner for making the payment of Category V in accordance with law, if the petitioner was worked as Category V post, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the petitioner wishes, he can file a fresh representation stating everything regarding that he was working as Category V post, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say that if the petitioner is entitled for the arrears of salary and other allowances in accordance with law, same may be extended to him within a period of four weeks thereafter. In view of the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands
Decision
disposed of.” 4. Pursuant to the reasoned order, the claim of the petitioner for arrear of salary etc. has been rejected on the ground that no documents has been produced by the petitioner either before the Tribunal as well as in the representation that he was promoted in higher post. For brevity, relevant portion of the reasoned order dated 10.03.2018 is extracted hereinbelow: “While considering the representation of Sri Abdul Rahman and the two Awards passed prior to this writ petition of similar nature, the Ld. Tribunal in previous Award clearly held that the workman concerned failed to produce any documentary evidences to prove rate of wages, he was drawing prior to his termination in June 1976. After considering the facts of the case, the Tribunal in the award held in the instant award that the workman concerned is not entitled for his claims. The management rightly categorised him as Category-I worker and therefore, finding of Tribunal in subsequent Award that the authorities of Karmik Bhawan misdealt with the case of workman reducing his stature/status to what of Armature Motor Winder (Helper) in cryptic manner is beyond jurisdiction as Ld. Tribunal cannot alter the previous Award. After examining facts of the case is reveals that petitioner concerned neither produced any records/documents before Tribunal as well as in his present representation that he was promoted in higher post during his employment by the management. In view of the facts submitted by the concerned department regarding his deployment in the work of Cat-l and in the absence of non- submission of any proof by the petitioner in respect of his promotion in Cat-V or proof of working in Cat V, I am of the view that claim of Sri Abdul Rahman that he is entitled for Cat-V wages is not justified and accordingly his representation is hereby disposed of.” 5. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Nomenclature Job Description and Categorisation of Employees of the Joint Bipartite Committee of the Coal Industry (Annexure-9) wherein, he has pointed out that the Armature Winder Grade II comes under Category V. He also draws attention towards the letter dated 23.08.2006; whereby the 3 2025:JHHC:35417 respondents have intimated him about his superannuation and contended that even the respondents have admitted the petitioner and recognised him as Armature Winder Grade II, which certainly comes under Category V. 6. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-A to the counter affidavit dated 08.11.2019 and submits that the Petitioner was a helper of Armature Winder Grade II and the helper comes under Category II and not under Category V; as such, the claim of the Petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondent authorities. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits; it appears that in fact the Petitioner superannuated from the post of Armature Motor Winder Helper in Category II without having been promoted as Armature Winder Grade II (W) in Category V as per the cadre scheme. 8. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner was never posted as Armature Winder in Grade II (W) in Category V. It is true that the post of Armature Winder Grade II comes under Category V which is having some eligibility criteria also (refer Annexure-A to the counter affidavit). Interestingly, Annexure-6 has been referred by the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner in support of his claim and from bare perusal of the said letter, it is crystal clear that the name of the Petitioner is mentioned and his status has been mentioned as 4 2025:JHHC:35417 “Armature Motor Winder Helper” and not as ‘Armature Winder Grade II’. 9. As a matter of fact, Annexure-A is the promotional channel of E & M personnel which relates to Armature Winder Helper to Armature Winder, wherein there is a specific criteria that four year experience is required as Armature Winder Helper in case of non-I.T.I. and non-matriculate and two years experience as Armature Winder/Trainee/Helper Category II in case of matric with I.T.I. The reasoned order which has been assailed in this writ application clearly indicates that the Petitioner neither produced any record/document before the tribunal as well as in the said representation filed pursuant to the order of this Court that he was ever promoted in higher post during his entire career before by the management. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has failed to make out any case for a direction upon the Respondent-Coal Company to give him arrear of salary. 11. As a result, the instant writ application stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. 12. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) November 27, 2025 vikas/- N . A . F . R . uploaded 28/11/2025 5