BALKISHUN SAW v. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR
WPC/7058/2025 · 2025-12-09
Sri Ananda Sen
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 37581 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 37581 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:36858 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7058 of 2025 ------ Balkishun Saw, S/o Late Gobardhan Sao, R/o Barughutu Banjee, Barughutu Uttari, Banji, PO-Banji, PS-Mandu, District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand).
… … Petitioner(s) Versus
1. Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Darbhanga House, PO-Ranchi University, PS-Kotwali Ranchi, District-Ranchi.
2. The Director (personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, PO- Ranchi University, PS-Kotwali Ranchi, District-Ranchi.
3. The General Manager, Charhi Area, Central Coalfields Limited, PO-Charhi, PS-Charhi, District-Hazaribagh.
4. The Project Officer, Kedla Open Cast Project, Charhi Area, Central Coalfields Limited, PO-Charhi, PS-Charhi, District- Hazaribagh.
5. The Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization through its Commissioner, Hirapur, PO+PS-Hirapur, District-Dhanbad.
… … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Kr. Shekhar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Shubham M. Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Karbir, Advocate
------ 02/ 09th December, 2025
1.
Heard the parties.
2.
Since the dispute is in relation to the fact that whether the petitioner is an imposter or not and whether he has entered in service by impersonating, is pending to be decided before the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad in ID case No.3/2017, no order can be passed in this writ petition at this stage. Unless a clear decision on facts is arrived at as to whether the petitioner was an imposter or not, in my opinion, he is not entitled for any benefits.
3.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Western Coal Fields Ltd. v. Manohar Govinda Fulzele, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 345 at para 15 has held as follows:
“15. The appointment itself being illegal, there is no question of the terminated employee seeking fruits of his employment by way of gratuity. We uphold the decision of the PSU forfeiting his entire gratuity....”
2025:JHHC:36858 2
4.
Thus, this writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court, if necessary, once a decision is taken by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad.
5.
It is expected that the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad, will expedite and try to dispose of the dispute preferably within a period of 09 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
09.12.2025 S.K.D.Cp-2 Uploaded on 10.12.2025