2025:JHHC:28854-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 58 of 2025 1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, having its office at Koyla Nagar, P.O.-Koyla Nagar, P.S.- Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad 2. Chief Manager (P) MP & R, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its Office at Koyla Nagar, P.O.- Koyla Nagar, P.S.- Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad 3. The General Manager (PF/Pension), M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla Nagar, P.O.- Koyla Nagar, P.S.- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad 4. The General Manager, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla Nagar, P.O.- Koyla Nagar, P.S.- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad 5. The Area Personnel Manager, B.C.C.L., Block II Area, P.O.- Nawagarh, P.S.- Barora, District- Dhanbad .…. Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. Debi Prasad Mukherjee, aged about 67 years, Son of Gokul Mukherjee, Resident of Village- Nabagram, P.O.- Nildih, P.S.- Raghunathpur, Dist.- Purulia, West Bengal, PIN-723133 …… … Writ Petitioner/Respondent 2. Coal Mines Provident Fund, through its Commissioner, having its Office at Hirapur, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad …… … Respondent/Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the CMPFO: Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, Advcoate For the Respondent: Mr. Akshay Kumar Mahato, Advocate --------- 03/Dated: 18.09.2025 I.A. No. 12392 of 2024 1) For the reasons stated in the application duly supported by the affidavit of the officer of the applicant, we find sufficient cause to 2025:JHHC:28854-DB condone the delay of 161 days’ that has crept up in filing the appeal. 2) Ordered accordingly. 3) I.A. No. 12392 of 2024 stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 58 of 2025 4) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5) We really wonder why the appellant has filed the instant appeal, particularly when it is for the appellant itself to take a decision in the matter as is evident from paragraph no. 6 of the order passed by the learned writ Court- “6. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid judicial pronouncement, the case of the present petitioner should also be considered. The respondents are directed to take a decision in this regard and if the cases of the petitioner is found to be same and similar to that of petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 31 of 2021, similar relief may be granted to the present writ petitioner also, in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. “ 6) The learned counsel for the appellant would state with vehemence that the order passed in W.P.(S.) No. 31 of 2021 has since been modified, if that be so, obviously the respondents are bound to take into consideration the modification so made in the said order, while taking a decision. 7) With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is disposed of. 8) Interlocutory application(s) if any, stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) 18/09/2025 NAFR (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sharda/MM/ Cp.02