IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:- The Hon’ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad And The Hon’ble Justice Partha Pratim Roy F.M.A. 23 of 2024 PANKAJ KORA Vs EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS For the Appellant : Mr. Nirmalendu Ganguly. For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Manik Das. Heard on : 08.09.2026 Judgment on : 14.09.2026 Madhuresh Prasad, J.: 1. The appellant was the writ petitioner in WPA No. 4912 of 2023 before the learned single Judge Bench, wherein he was seeking retiral benefits accumulated in the account of his deceased father (Late Henat Kora), together with interest. He was also claiming suitable employment under the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter in short referred to as the “NCWA”). The learned single Judge Bench by its order dated 29.03.2023, directed the respondent no. 1, Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. (hereinafter in short referred to as the ECL) and the respondent no. 4 The Regional Commissioner, Coal 2 Mines Provident Fund Organization (CPFO in short) , Region III, Ushagram, Asansol in the following terms: (i) Release the entire Gratuity dues with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. (ii) To pay interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from July 7, 2003 (the date succeeding the date of death) till 2014 since it was wrongfully withheld during this period. (iii) The Court further directed the ECL to pay leave encashment dues along with any other terminal dues of the petitioner’s father along with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum on the leave encashment benefits from July 7, 2003 till the date of actual payment. 2. The order of the learned single Judge dated 29.03.2023 passed in the writ proceeding in so far as claim for compassionate appointment, was taken up in an intra-court appeal by the appellants in the present proceeding. 3. The respondent ECL had also preferred an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge. The respondents’ appeal was numbered as MAT 969 of 2023. The present appellant was represented in MAT 969 of 2023. The coordinate Bench while considering the appeal noted the fact that there was no dispute regarding the writ petitioner’s entitlement to the three benefits which were directed to be paid by the learned single Judge Bench. The Division Bench also noted that in view of their obligation to pay the aforesaid sum to the Petitioner; and since corpus of the dues was otherwise utilized by the ECL to which 3 they were not entitled, benefit of interest has been extended to the petitioner at the time of final disbursement. The Division Bench, however, modified the interest payable on gratuity to the writ petitioner to 10 per cent per annum. The direction to pay interest on leave encashment was not interfered with by the coordinate bench. 4. While disposing the ECL’s appeal being No. MAT 969 of 2023 along with application being CAN 1 of 2023 vide order dated 29.01.2024, submission of the present writ petitioner was recorded in the following terms: “8. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that his two sisters made no claim for the said amount and he has disclosed the document. 9. At the time of receiving the entire retiral benefits, an indemnity bond should be executed by the writ petitioner in favour of ECL. 10. The impugned order stands modified to the aforesaid extent and the aforesaid payment shall be made within a period of three weeks from date.” 5. It appears from the order passed by the coordinate bench that the entire claims raised in the writ petition attained finality by the order dated 29.01.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench in MAT 969 of 2023, after considering the stand of the ECL as well as the present writ petitioner/ appellant. Therefore, the preliminary issue arises for consideration whether the present appeal filed at the instance of the writ petitioner would survive in so far as the same cause of action between the same parties, which was earlier decided by the coordinate Bench in MAT 969 of 2023. 4 6. The learned Advocate for the writ petitioner/appellant relied upon decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hari Shankar Rastogi v. Sham Manohar & Ors. Reported in (2005) 3 SCC 761 and Superintending Engineer & Ors. V. B. Subba Reddy reported in (1999) 4 SCC 423. 7. The learned Advocate for the respondent ECL on the other hand submitted that relief raised by the writ petitioner/appellant attained finality in terms of order of the coordinate Bench passed in MAT 969 of 2023, after hearing the present writ petitioner who was represented before the coordinate bench. Under the facts and circumstances there is no scope for this Court to consider the same issue concluded by a decision of the coordinate bench on the self-same cause of action, , between the self-same parties. 8. Learned Counsel for ECL relied upon a decision of apex Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. & Ors. V. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd , Kollegal reported in (2019) 4 SCC 376. He submitted that the order of the single Judge in the writ proceeding which is the subject matter of the present appeal merged in the order passed by the coordinate Bench in MAT 969 of 2023. The order of the Coordinate Bench was passed after hearing the present appellant. Therefore, the issues arising for consideration in the present appeal, attained finality. The order of the coordinate Bench is final and binding “inter partes”. 9. We have considered rival submission and pronouncements relied upon by both the parties represented by their learned Advocates. The 5 issues raised by the present appellant in the writ petition included the writ petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. The claim was raised despite the fact that the writ petitioner was less than 12 years of age at the time of death of his father in harness. Considering this undisputed factual position the single Judge by the order dated 29.03.2023 passed in the writ proceeding held that there was no scope for keeping the writ petitioner’s name in live roaster for grant of compassionate appointment as he was not qualified for such benefit. The prayer for compassionate appointment was accordingly rejected by the order of the learned Single Judge. 10. In so far as the other claims regarding terminal benefits including death cum gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund, the learned single Judge directed for payment as noted above. The direction for payment under the three heads was modified by the coordinate bench in MAT 969 of 2023 by its order dated 29.01.2024. The petitioner was the respondent in the appeals filed by the ECL. The modification of the order of the single Bench by the Division Bench was after hearing the writ petitioner/ present appellant and judgment of the learned Single Judge therefore, merged in the order of the Division Bench dated 29.01.2024 in MAT 969 of 2023. The issues raised in the writ petition thus attained finality “inter partes”, in respect of the issues by a decision of the Coordinate Bench, against which the writ petitioner/present appellant chose not to appeal in the higher Courts. 6 11. Insofar as the decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant in the case of Superintending Engineer & Ors (supra) and Hari Shankar Rastogi (supra) we find that the same does not inure to the benefit of the appellant in support of maintainability of the present appeal in the above noted facts and circumstances. The learned advocate for the appellant harped on paragraph 23 in the case of Superintending Engineer (supra) which was subsequently followed in the case of Hari Shankar Rastogi (supra) in paragraph 4 and the same reads as follows: “4. The question whether the cross-objections are maintainable, even when the appeal has been withdrawn was considered by this Court in Superintending Engineer v. B. Subba Reddy [(1999) 4 SCC 423] . After considering various judgments, it was held as follows: (SCC pp. 433-34, para 23) “23. From the examination of these judgments and the provisions of Section 41 of the Act and Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code, in our view, the following principles emerge: (1) Appeal is a substantive right. It is a creation of the statute. Right to appeal does not exist unless it is specifically conferred. (2) Cross-objection is like an appeal. It has all the trappings of an appeal. It is filed in the form of memorandum and the provisions of Rule 1 of Order 41 of the Code, so far as these relate to the form and contents of the memorandum of appeal apply to cross-objection as well. (3) Court fee is payable on cross-objection like that on the memorandum of appeal. Provisions relating to appeals by an indigent person also apply to cross-objection. (4) Even where the appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default, cross-objection may nevertheless be heard and determined. (5) The respondent even though he has not appealed may support the decree on any other ground but if he wants to modify it, he has to file cross-objection to the decree which objections he could have taken earlier by filing an appeal. Time for filing objection which is in the nature of appeal is extended by one month after service of notice on him of the day fixed for hearing the appeal. This time could also be extended by the court like in appeal. (6) Cross-objection is nothing but an appeal, a cross-appeal at that. It may be that the respondent wanted to give a quietus to the whole 7 litigation by his accepting the judgment and decree or order even if it was partly against his interest. When, however, the other party challenged the same by filing an appeal the statute gave the respondent a second chance to file an appeal by way of cross-objection if he still felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree or order.” 12. Paragraph 23 deals with the provisions contained in Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Considering these provisions the Apex Court delineated the principles in paragraph 23 extracted above. The paragraph 23 deals with the facts and circumstances wherein an appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default. In this context the apex Court cited the law that even if the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default cross objection may nevertheless be heard and determined. 13. This case does not involve any withdrawal or dismissal on the ground of default of appeal. In the present case the appeal in MAT 969 of 2023 was finally decided after hearing parties including the present appellant on 29.01.2024. 14. An additional fact in the present case, weighing against the present appellant is the factum of pendency of the present appeal, which was filed on 03.07.2023, long before MAT 969 of 2023 was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench on 29.01.2024. The present appellant took no steps for ensuring consideration of the present appeal along with MAT 969 of 2023. If at all the appellant was desirous of raising any issue against the order passed in WPA No.4912 of 2023, he was required to diligently seek tagging of the present appeal, or its consideration analogous to MAT 969 of 2023, 8 which he has not done. 15. We also take into consideration the settled law that decision of a Coordinate Bench is binding on a subsequent Coordinate Bench when dealing with issues decided by the earlier bench. If we were to entertain the plea raised by the appellant herein, it would amount to sitting in appeal over decision of the Coordinate Bench in MAT 969 of 2023, which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India deprecated in State Through Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Hemendhra Reddy & Anr., reported in (2023) 16 SCC 779 paragraph 88 and 89 of judgments reads: “88. Thus, one coordinate Bench of the High Court, virtually sat in appeal over the judgment of another coordinate Bench and took a contrary view. The learned Single Judge says in his impugned order that the High Court in its earlier order dated 11-9-2014 [D. Dwarakanath Reddy v. State of T.N., Criminal OP No. 6371 of 2014, order dated 11-9-2014 (Mad)] referred to above omitted to consider the decision of this Court in Vinay Tyagi [Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 557] and therefore, per incuriam whereas, the decision of this Court in Vinay Tyagi [Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 557] was very much looked into and has been referred to in the order dated 11-9-2014 [D. Dwarakanath Reddy v. State of T.N., Criminal OP No. 6371 of 2014, order dated 11-9-2014 (Mad)] . Thus, two contrary views have been taken by different Judges of equal strength of the High Court on the same subject and litigation. 89. We would like to extend a word of caution over here. While it is open to a learned Judge to differ with a view of a coordinate Bench the sequitur is to make a reference to a larger Bench on papers being placed before the learned Chief Justice. The learned Judge cannot 9 simply say “with due respect, I do not agree to the ratio…” or “the decision is per incuriam as a binding judgment of the Supreme Court has not been considered….” and proceed to take a contrary view as done in the impugned order. Such an approach would result in conflicting opinions of the coordinate Benches, resulting in judicial chaos and is, thus, improper. This is something atrocious and unacceptable.” 16. Therefore, we have no hesitation in concluding that there is no scope whatsoever for this court to again consider and determine the issues contested and decided between the same parties in respect of the self-same cause of action. 17. The present appeal in our opinion, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. 18. We order accordingly. 19. There will be no order as to costs. 20. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) I agree. (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)