Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:23898 ) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Contempt Case (Civil) No. 835 of 2024 --------- Jaglal Prasad Ram, S/o Shibu Ram, R/o Gandhi Nagar, P.O. Gandhi Nagar, P.S. Dhansar, District Dhanbad ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mr. Samiran Dutta, Chairman-cum-Managing Director M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad 3. Mr. Murali Krishna Ranahaja, Director Personnel (Head Quarter), M/s. B.C.C.L., having its office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad 4. Bidyut Saha, General Manager, (P&IR) Headquarter M/s. B.C.C.L., having its office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad 5. Mr. Pranab Das, General Manager, Kusunda Area No.-VI, M/s. B.C.C.L., P.O. Kusunda, P.S. Kenduadih, District Dhanbad 6. Mr. Ved Prakash, Chief Personnel Manager, Kusunda Area No.-VI, M/s B.C.C.L., P.O. Kusunda, P.S.- Kenduadih, District Dhanbad 7. Miss Pallavi, Deputy Manager (Personnel), Kusunda Area No.-VI, M/s. B.C.C.L., P.O.- Kusunda, P.S. Kenduadih, District Dhanbad ... … Opposite Parties With C.M.P. No. 101 of 2025 --------- Jaglal Prasad Ram, S/o Shibu Ram, R/o Gandhi Nagar, P.O. Gandhi Nagar, P.S. Dhansar, District Dhanbad ... … Petitioner Versus 1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman- Cum -Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad 2. The Director Personnel, (Head Quarter), M/s. B.C.C.L., having its office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad 3. The General Manager, (P&IR) Headquarter B.C.C.L. Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad 4. The General Manager, Kusunda Area No.-VI, B.C.C.L., P.O. Kusunda, P.S. Kenduadih, District Dhanbad 5. The Chief Personnel Manager, Kusunda Area No.-VI, M/s. B.C.C.L., P.O. Kusunda, P.S. Kenduadih, District Dhanbad Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:23898 ) -2- 6. The Deputy Manager (Personnel), Kusunda Area No.-VI, B.C.C.L., P.O.- Kusunda, P.S. Kenduadih, District Dhanbad ... … Respondents --------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate --------- 08/14.08.2025 C.M.P. No. 101 of 2025 Heard Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents. This application has been preferred by the petitioner for modification/clarification of the order dated 24.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 254/2021. The modification which has been sought for is with respect to a direction upon the respondents to make payment of the salary for a period of seven months during which the petitioner had to remain idle on account of entering the wrong date of birth in the service record of the company forcing the petitioner to retire on 31.05.1962 instead of 31.12.1962. The petitioner was issued a letter by the respondent no. 6 dated 13/16.11.2022 wherein an intimation was given to the petitioner that the age dispute has been resolved and the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 14.05.1962. The petitioner claims that his date of birth should be recorded as 12.12.1962. On consideration of the submission advanced by the learned counsels for the respective parties and the averments made in the affidavits an order was passed on 24.01.2024 in W.P.(S) No. 254/2021 wherein the impugned letter dated 13/16.11.2020 was quashed and set aside. As a consequence, to the quashment of the impugned letter dated 13/16.11.2022 in W.P.(S) No. 254/2021 the same has led to institution of a contempt case Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:23898 ) -3- being Contempt Case (Civil) No. 835/2024 as well as the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition which has been sought for clarification/modification of the order dated 24.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 254/2021. Though it has been vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without any fault on the part of the petitioner he was forced to retire prematurely on 31.05.1962 instead of 31.12.1962 and, therefore, a modification be made in the order dated 24.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 254/2021 directing the concerned authorities to make payment of the salary to the petitioner for the period of seven months during which he had to sit idle on account of the inaction/error on the part of the respondent authorities but the petitioner cannot claim the salary for the period he was out of service as a matter of right and, therefore, I am not inclined to modify the order dated 24.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 254/2021. However, at the same time the petitioner is always at liberty to approach the respondent authorities claiming salary for a period of seven months and other consequential benefits. Though it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that representation has already been submitted but the same has not been acted upon as yet by the authority concerned. The petitioner may submit a fresh representation giving details of his dues including the salary for the period of seven months before the respondent no. 4 and if such representation is preferred endeavor shall be made by the respondent no. 4 to dispose it of in accordance with law. It goes without saying that if the claim of the petitioner is found to be admissible necessary payments shall be extended to the petitioner expeditiously. The order dated 24.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 254/2024 is modified/clarified to the aforesaid extent. This application stands disposed of. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:23898 ) -4- Contempt Case (Civil) No. 835 of 2024 In view of the order passed in C.M.P. No. 101 of 2025 nothing survives in this contempt application which accordingly stands disposed of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) A. Sanga/-