South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Vinod Kumar Koushik

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:7414-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2025.02.13 16:33:37 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WA No. 103 of 2025

¶7

1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The Chairman-CumManaging Director, S.E.C.L, S.E.C.L Head Quarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, Dist Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - The General Manager Personnel And Administration, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, S.E.C.L Head Quarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, Dist Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3 - Board Of Directors Through The Company Secretary, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, S.E.C.L Head Quarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, Dist Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Appellants

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Vinod Kumar Koushik S/o D.R. Koushik Aged About 28 Years Data Entry Operator Gr-D South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Chhal Area, PS Chhal, Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

WA No. 105 of 2025

¶15

1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, S E C L, S E C L Head Quarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 1)

¶16

2 - The General Manager Personnel And Administration South Eastern Coalfields Limited, S E C L Head Quarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 2)

¶17

3 - Board of Directors Through The Company Secretary, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, S E C L Head Quarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 3)

¶18

--- Appellants

¶19

Versus

¶20

1 - Govind Prasad Pandey S/o Shri S. L. Pandey Aged About 46 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Area H Q Jamuna Kotma Anuppur, P S Jamuna Kotma, District Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh. (Petitioner No. 1)

¶21

2

¶22

2 - A.K. Thakur S/o Shri R.K. Thakur Data Entry Operator T And S Gr. S E C L Head Office, Bilaspur, P S Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 2)

¶23

3 - Shailesh Shrivastava S/o Shri D.P. Shrivastava Aged About 48 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Head Office Bilaspur, P S Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 3)

¶24

4 - Sushil Kumar Pandey S/o Prem Narayan Pandey Aged About 47 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Head Office Bilaspur, P S Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 4)

¶25

5 - Satish Kumar Rathor S/o Shri S.R. Rathor Aged About 44 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Head Office Bilaspur, P S Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 5)

¶26

6 - Smt. Anita Singh W/o Shri Pradeep Singh Aged About 54 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Head Office Bilaspur, P S Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 6)

¶27

7 - Babuji Charien S/o Shri M.J. Charien Aged About 38 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Head Office Bilaspur, P S Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 7)

¶28

8 - Sharad Rajesh Henary S/o Shri F. Henary Aged About 44 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Head Office Bilaspur, P S Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 8)

¶29

9 - Rajesh Dalal S/o Shri A.K. Dalal Aged About 41 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Head Office Bilaspur, P S Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 9)

¶30

10 - Raj Kumar Kashyap S/o Shri A.S. Kashyap Aged About 49 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Head Office Bilaspur, P S Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 10)

¶31

11 - Sanjay Kumar Talhan S/o Shri J. Talhan Aged About 44 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Head Office Bilaspur, P S Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 11)

¶32

12 - Smt. Saraswati Sadhu W/o Shri U.K. Sadhu Aged About 45 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Head Office Bilaspur, P S Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 12)

¶33

3

¶34

13 - Shivnandan S/o Shri Pradeep Singh Aged About 54 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Head Office Bilaspur, P S Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 13)

¶35

14 - Smt. Renu Sharma Shri S.K. Sharma Aged About 51 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Head Office Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 14)

¶36

15 - Smt. Khiniya Manwani Shri Sanjay Manwani Aged About 40 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Head Office Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 15)

¶37

16 - Smt. Alka Bhalerao Shri A.N. Bhalerao Aged About 57 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Head Office Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 16)

¶38

17 - Shreyanas Patnayak Shri A.K. Patnayak Aged About 33 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Head Office Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 17)

¶39

18 - Retlal Rajwade S/o Shri R. Rajwade Aged About 47 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Head Office Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 18)

¶40

19 - Pramod Kumar Singh S/o Shri S.P.Singh Aged About 46 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Head Office Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 19)

¶41

20 - Krishna Bihari Tiwari S/o Shri Jagnnath Tiwari Aged About 40 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Head Office Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 20)

¶42

21 - Anwar Ali S/o Shri Md. Mustafa Aged About 42 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Head Office Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 21)

¶43

22 - Smt. Patralekha Sinha Roy W/o Shri R.S. Roy Aged About 53 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Head Office Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 22)

¶44

23 - Vijay Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri K.P. Tiwari Aged About 42 Years Data Entry Operator Tands Gr. C, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Head Office

¶45

4

¶46

Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 23)

¶47

24 - Naveen Kumar Saini S/o Shri P.K. Saini Aged About 42 Years Data Entry Operator T And S Gr C, S E C L Vishrampur, H Q Surguja, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 24)

¶48

25 - S. Avinash S/o Shri S.V. Raju Aged About 25 Years H I G-4, First Floor, Phase-I, Geetanjali City, Bahatari Road, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 4)

¶49

26 - Veelendra Pandey S/o Shri Om Prakash Pandey Aged About 25 Years R/o Vasant Vihar Colony, S E C L, P S Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 5)

¶50

27 - Shashank Shukla S/o Anil Kumar Shukla Aged About 25 Years R/o A-144, Vasant Vihar Colony S E C L, P S Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 6)

¶51

28 - Amrish Kumar Singh S/o Madhu Sudan Singh Aged About 27 Years Vasant Vihar Colony S E C L, P S Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 7)

¶52

29 - Ajit Singh S/o Shri Raviraj Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o P/64, Pili Dafai, Kotma Colliery, P S Anuppur, District Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh. (Respondent No. 8)

¶53

30 - Dharmendra Prajapati Aged About 26 Years Cat-I, Johilla Area, Nourouzabad Colliery, P S Umaria, District Umaria, Madhya Pradesh. (Respondent No. 9)

¶54

--- Respondents

¶55

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶56

For Appellants	: Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Senior Advocate
	with Mr. PankajSingh, Advocate
For Respondent	: Mr. AnuragDayal Shrivastava, Advocate

¶57

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶58

Judgment on Board

¶59

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶60

12.02.2025

¶61

1. Heard Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, learned Senior counsel assisted

¶62

by Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr.

¶63

5

¶64

Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents.

¶65

2. Also heard on I.A. No.2 of 2025, which is applications for condonation of delay of 110 days in preferring the appeals.

¶66

3. For the reasons stated in the applications (I.A. No.2 of 2025) and not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents, the applications (I.A. No.2 of 2025) are allowed. The delay of 110 days in preferring the present appeals are hereby condoned.

¶67

4. Since common issue has been involved in both the writ appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and decided by this common judgment.

¶68

5. The present intra Court appeals have been filed by the appellants against the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.1349 of 2013 ( Vinod Kumar Koushik vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others ) and WPC No.992 of 2014 ( Govind Prasad Pandey and others vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others ), whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners/respondents herein.

¶69

6. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in an identical matter, this Court had dismissed Writ Appeal No.898 of 2024 ( Veelendra Pandey and others vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Others ) vide order dated 09.01.2025 observing as follows :

¶70

6

¶71

“8. From perusal of the said channel provided in NCWA for promotion of Data Entry Operator (T&S) group, it is clear that the minimum criteria of experience is three years for their promotion. In that scheme of NCWA for promotion there is no provision for promotion to higher post from any other channel. The employees who are recruited from any other source cannot enter into this channel as per NCWA. The private respondents No. 4 to 9 of the writ petition were initially appointed as Daily Rated employee and they did not have any substantive post in the department and they did not have any cadre also as per the above mentioned chart.

¶72

9. The decision of respondent authorities taken on 31.12.2012 to promote departmental candidates who possessed BE/Diploma in Engineering in T&S Grade-B and Grade-C which has been approved by the Board of Directors on 15.02.2013, certain employees of Grade-D and Grade-C were considered for placement in the respective cadre as one time arrangement and the

¶73

7

¶74

decision taken by the management would show that this benefit was extended to 10 employees who were having BE Degree and 14 employees who were having Diploma in Engineering.

¶75

10. In absence of any provision in the NCWA, the respondent authorities or Ministry of Coal or even the Management cannot make a decision to promote the candidate who were not in promotion channel. The respondent authorities should have considered the intelligible differentia between those two groups exists the nexus between the differentia and the object of the legislation. After considering the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India Vs. Atul Shukla, AIR 2015 SC 1777 and after considering the facts of the present case, the learned Single Judge has considered that the decision taken by the management is contrary to the provisions of promotion of Data Entry Operator (T&S) given in the NCWA and there is no intelligible differential. The learned Single Judge has further considered that there is no reason to

¶76

8

¶77

bypass the terms of NCWA and to take such a decision. The Single Judge has also considered the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttarakhand Vs. Sudhir Budakoti and Others, 2022 (13) SCC 256 and considered the exigencies and divert situation and came into conclusion that the services of workmen working in coalmines are governed by the settlement known as NCWA and the terms and conditions of the said NCWA is binding on the parties as provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act, 1947, unless the same is altered, modified or substituted by another settlement.

¶78

11. In the present case the respondent authorities could not show any alteration, modification or substitution in the said NCWA to extend the promotional benefit to private respondents. Considering the provisions of NCWA and also under the facts and circumstances of the case learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners and quashed the resolution dated 15.02.2013 passed by the

¶79

9

¶80

Board of Director and order of promotion dated 26.10.2013.

¶81

12. From the overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the provisions of NCWA, we are of the view that the order passed by learned Single Judge is absolutely justified and we are also of the view that if there is no provision in the NCWA for creating such type of promotional channel in the Data Entry Operator (T&S), it cannot be done in the manner it was done without there being any alteration, modification or substitution in the relevant provision of NCWA.

¶82

13. In writ appeal no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Single Judge unless palpable infirmities are being shown in the impugned order. From perusal of entire material placed on record, we do not find any such infirmities or irregularities in the order passed by learned Single Judge which warrants interference of this court.

¶83

14. Therefore, we do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the findings recorded

¶84

10

¶85

by learned Single Judge and the writ appeal

¶86

is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. ”

¶87

They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present cases are identical to that of Writ Appeal No.898 of 2024, these appeals may also be disposed off in the same terms.

¶88

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in these appeals are identical to Writ Appeal No.898 of 2024 , this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in Writ Appeal No.898 of 2024 .

¶89

8. Accordingly, the present appeals are dismissed in terms of the order dated 09.01.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.898 of 2024 ( Veelendra Pandey and others vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Others ).

¶90

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶91

Anu

South Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Vinod Kumar Koushik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

South Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Vinod Kumar Koushik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akash Vidhani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Girdhari Prasad Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prabhat Kumar Dadsena General Secretary Vs Bharat Aluminum Shramik Sangh (Hms)

Tikeshwar Dahariya @ Khileshwar Dahariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Durga Amma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Govind Prasad Pandey