SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, J.
Dhaneshwar Mahto son of Late Jaleshwar Mahto - Petitioner
Versus
Central Coal Field Limited – Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 4582 of 2014
Decided On : 25-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. M.M. Pal, Sr. Advocate,  Ms. Manjushree Patra, Advocate, Ms. Mahua Palit, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate, Ms. Astha, Advocate

Permanent disability benefits under Public Sector Agreements require proof of loss of employment due to injury, and hereditary employment claims violate constitutional equality mandates.

Headnote:(A) National Coal Wage Agreement - Clause 9.4.0 - Employment benefits for permanently disabled workers - Petitioner, a loader, sought relief after sustaining permanent injuries in an accident while on duty, invoking Clause 9.4.0 for employment of his dependent; however, he was deemed ineligible due to having less than two years of service remaining. Court held no loss of employment exists as he received wages till superannuation, thus Clause 9.4.0 inapplicable. Court emphasized constitutional compliance, stating hereditary employment practices violate Article 14. (Paras 2-10)

(B) Employment Rights - Permanent Disability - Conditions for benefits under Clause 9.4.0 require permanent disablement due to injury resulting in loss of employment, certified by the company, not fulfilled in this case due to petitioner’s service continuity. (Paras 6, 9)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner met with an accident while returning from duty on 29.04.2013, resulting in permanent injuries and loss of ability to work. Following the accident, he sought retirement and requested the employment of his son under NCWA but faced rejection based on Clause 9.4.0 requirements.

Findings of Court:
The court found no loss of employment, as the petitioner maintained his employment with wages until his superannuation, rendering Clause 9.4.0 inapplicable. The practice of hereditary employment was deemed unconstitutional.

Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application for employment benefits under the NCWA was justifiable given his claim of permanent disability while returning from duty.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the failure to establish loss of employment and the constitutional mandate against hereditary appointments rendered the petitioner ineligible for the claimed benefits under NCWA.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's request for relief based on medical disability. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding application of ncwa clauses. (Para 3 , 4)
3. analysis of employment clause applicability. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. nature of public employment and hereditary rights. (Para 10 , 11)
5. conclusion affirming dismissal of the petition. (Para 12)

ORDER :

Ananda Sen, J.

By filing this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -

A) The office order dated 29.03.2014 issued by the General Manager (P&IR) C.C. (Annexure 6) be quashed.

B) The office order dated 10.04.2014 issued by the Staff Officer (P&A) whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner for retirement under Medical Ground has been rejected (Annexure 7) be quashed.

C) The Respondents be directed not to give effect to the office orders dated 10.04.2014 and 29.03.2014 issued by the staff Officer and General Manager (P&IR) C.C.L. Ranchi and to pass a fresh order according to Para-9.4.0(I).

D) The Respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh under the provision of Para 9.4.0(I) which is applicable in the case of the petitioner and to pass a final order within a stipulated period.

E) The Respondents be directed to accept the application of his resignation under Medical ground under 9.4.0(I) of the NCWA as the disablement of the petitioner arises from injury consequent upon an accident which is permanent in nature resulting into loss of employment.

F) The Respondents be directed to treat the petitioner as retired under Medical ground under Para 9.4.0(I) NCWA and to extend all consequential benefits thereon.

G) The Respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner under Para 9.4.0(I) and to provide employment to his dependent/son under the scheme.

H) The Respondents be directed not to discriminate the petitioner and to extend the same benefits of retirement vis-à-vis employment to his dependent at par with the same and similar situated person.

I) The Respondents be directed to refer the cause of the petitioner again before the Medical Board for its report as required for retirement under Medical ground under Para 9.4.0(I) NCWA.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Loader. While he was posted as Senior Lineman in N.K. Area, on 29.04.2013, in course of returning from duty, he met with an accident. He sustained compound fractures because of the said accident. He was admitted in the CCL Hospital on 29.04.2013 and was referred to Apollo Hospital for further treatment on 02.05.2013. On 19.05.2013, he was discharged from the Apollo Hospital, but was again admitted to the CCL Hospital on 20.05.2013. In the Apollo Hospital, he had undergone surgery as there were several injuries including abdomen injuries, chest injuries and multiple fractures. Often as a result of the said injuries, he had to be hospitalized. It is the case of the petitioner that since he was seriously injured and injury was permanent in nature, he was not in a position to stand and move, which is a permanent disability. He is medically unfit to perform his duties. On 31.07.2013, he made an application before the Project Officer, N.K. Area, Central Coalfields Limited mentioning that as he was not in a position to perform his duties due to serious injuries. He invoked Clause 9.4.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) and sought employment for his dependent son under the said scheme. No action was taken on his application. Petitioner was directed to submit an application in proper format. His application was referred to the General Manager. The Area Screening Committee consulted the petitioner and found that he is not able to perform the duties due to the said accident and his case is fit for reference. Vide letter dated 29.03.2014, the matter was referred to the Medical Department, but the same was returned with a remark that the petitioner has left with less than two years of service on the date of his application, therefore, in terms of Clause 9.4.0 o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top