Dismissed¶32

Daya Rani v. Union of India through the Executive Director (Irs), Food Corporation of India Headquarters

Jharkhand HC26 Feb 2026LPA/486/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

L.P.A. No. 486 of 2025; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Daya Rani, Hari Bilas Paswan, Sumitra Devi, Mahadeo Paswan, Harendra Nath Biswas v. Union of India and Food Corporation of India officials; regularization of services; industrial tribunal award dated 08.09.2011 (Reference No. 130 of 1996); award dated 27.08.2015 (Reference No. 165 of 1997); regularization from date of reference versus date of Tribunal's order; parity with other workmen; modification of award; acceptance of benefits without protest; award attained finality; delay and laches; W.P. (S) No. 42 of 2025; Single Judge order dated 21.01.2025; appeal dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The learned Single Judge committed no error whatsoever in rejecting W.P. (S) No. 42 of 2025. ¶25

Daya Rani Vs Union of India through the Executive Director (Irs), Food Corporation of India Headquarters — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants, whose services were regularized by the Tribunal award dated 08.09.2011 (Reference No. 130 of 1996) only from the date of the Tribunal's order, are entitled to regularization from the date of the reference on parity with the workmen covered by the award dated 27.08.2015 in Reference No. 165 of 1997, i.e., whether the award dated 08.09.2011 can now be modified in their favour. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The learned Single Judge committed no error whatsoever in rejecting W.P. (S) No. 42 of 2025.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners cannot seek benefits under some other award favouring an individual workman.

¶26

Key takeaways

Having accepted the benefits under the award dated 08.09.2011 without any protest and defended that award when the respondent-FCI challenged it up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellants cannot be granted any relief which would amount to modification of the award dated 08.09.2011.ratio¶27
The appeal is additionally hit by delay and laches: even assuming the claim rests upon the award dated 27.08.2015, the writ petition was filed after almost 10 years without any explanation for the inordinate delay; this is an additional ground on which the writ petition could have been rejected, though not one adopted by the learned Single Judge.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

L.P.A. No. 486 of 2025 (High Court of Jharkhand, Division Bench) — dismissed without costs. Five workmen regularized by Tribunal award dated 08.09.2011 disposing of Reference No. 130 of 1996, with effect from the date of the Tribunal's order, sought via W.P. (S) No. 42 of 2025 (rejected by the learned Single Judge on 21.01.2025) regularization from the date of the reference on parity with workmen under Reference No. 165 of 1997, who had secured award dated 27.08.2015 granting regularization from the date of reference. Held: (i) workmen who accepted an award's benefits without protest and defended it when challenged by FCI up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court — whereby the award dated 08.09.2011 attained finality qua the parties — cannot claim benefits under another award favouring individual workmen, nor obtain relief amounting to modification of that award; (ii) there was no error in the learned Single Judge's rejection of the writ petition; and (iii) the claim was additionally barred by delay and laches, the writ petition having been filed after almost 10 years without explanation for the inordinate delay.

¶1

2026:JHHC:5660-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

L.P.A. No. 486 of 2025

¶4

Daya Rani, W/o Late Shivji Paswan, R/o Village-Imlitola, P.O. & P.S.-Gulabbagh, District-Purnea (Bihar)

¶5

Hari Bilas Paswan, S/o Late Ram Sunder Paswan, R/o Village-Sani Mandir, P.O. & P.S.-Gulabbagh, District-Purnea (Bihar)

¶6

Sumitra Devi, W/o Late Jagdish Rai, R/o Village-Singia Tola, P.O. & P.S.-Gulabbagh, District-Purnea (Bihar)

¶7

Mahadeo Paswan, S/o Fulchand Paswan, R/o Village-Sani Mandir, P.O. & P.S.-Gulabbagh, District-Purnea (Bihar)

¶8

Harendra Nath Biswas, S/o Late Harlal Biswas, R/o Village-Ram Krishna Pali, P.O. & P.S.-Akalpur, District-Malda (West Bengal)

¶9

….. Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Union of India, through the Executive Director (IRS), Food Corporation of India Headquarters, New Delhi

¶12

The Executive Director (East), Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (E), Kolkata (West Bengal)

¶13

The Assistant General Manager (Personnel), Regional Office, Food Corporation of India, Patna

¶14

The Manager (Karmik), Divisional Office, Food Corporation of India, Purnea (Bihar) ….. Respondents

¶15

----- CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶16

----For the Appellants: Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate -----

¶17

03/26.02.2026

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

This appeal challenges the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the petitioners’ writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 42 of 2025, which, in fact sought modification of the award dated 08.09.2011 disposing of Reference No. 130 of 1996.

¶20

By the award dated 08.09.2011, the services of the petitioners were in fact regularized. Such regularization was however from the date of the Tribunal’s order. The petitioners accepted the benefits under the said award without raising any grievance whatsoever.

¶21

However, the respondent-Food Corporation of India (FCI) challenged the Tribunal’s award dated 08.09.2011 before this

¶22

¶23

2026:JHHC:5660-DB

¶24

Court, however, this challenge was rejected. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also did not entertain the special leave petition filed by the respondent-FCI. The award dated 08.09.2011, therefore, attained finality qua the parties. Significantly, during the entire process, even the appellants/petitioners did not challenge the Tribunal’s award dated 08.09.2011 on the ground that they should have been regularized from some earlier date i.e., the date of reference.

¶25

Some other set of employees, who were parties to Reference No. 165 of 1997, secured an award dated 27.08.2015, in which they were granted regularization from the date of the reference and not from the date of the Tribunal’s order. The petitioners, who had accepted the earlier award dated 08.09.2011 or in any event, who had chosen to sit on the fence from all this while, petitioned this Court vide W.P. (S) No. 42 of 2025 claiming that even they should be given the same benefits, which were granted to the workmen who were the parties to Reference No. 165 of 1997. Learned Single Judge has rejected this writ petition and we find no error whatsoever in the approach of the learned Single Judge.

¶26

The petitioners cannot seek benefits under some other award favouring an individual workman. If the petitioners were indeed aggrieved by the award dated 08.09.2011, they should have challenged the same. Instead, they chose to accept the benefits without any protest whatsoever. They even defended this award when the respondent-FCI challenged the same up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶27

At this stage, therefore, at the behest of the appellants/petitioners, there is no question of granting any relief to them, which would amount to modification of the award dated 08.09.2011.

¶28

¶29

2026:JHHC:5660-DB

¶30

26.02.2026 Satish/Vikas/

¶31

That apart, we are satisfied that the present appeal is also hit by the delay and laches. The petitioners seek modification of the award dated 08.09.2011 by preferring an appeal in the year 2025. Assuming that their claim is based upon the award dated 27.08.2015, still the writ petition was filed after almost 10 years without any explanation for the inordinate delay. This is only an additional ground on which the writ petition could have been rejected, though this is not a ground adopted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.

¶32

For the above reasons, we dismiss this appeal without any order of costs.

¶33

(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)

¶34

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J.)

¶35

Daya Rani v. Union of India through the Executive Director (Irs), Food Corporation of India Headquarters

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Rani v. Union of India through the Executive Director (Irs), Food Corporation of India Headquarters

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Nepl Knd Mc (Jv) Thro Its Authorized Signatory, Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Vs Ms Rungta Project Ltd.

Ambawati Vs Central Coalfield Limited and Ors.

Vijeta Projects and Infrastructure Ltd. through One of Its Director, Sri Ravindra Bharti Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand

Jitendra Kumar Jaisal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand Human Rights Confere Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.