1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4780 of 2024 Order Reserved on 21.3.2025 Order Passed on 13.6.2025 1 - Sonu Kumar Paw S/o. Late Amar Singh Paw Aged About 34 Years R/o. Village - Nandgaon, Tahsil - Kotma, District - Anuppur (M.P.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Government of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Labour And Employment, Directorate of General Miner Safety Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 2 - General Manager (P And P / L And R) / (P And A (Mp) Personal And (Main Powers) S.E.C.L. Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Managing Director South Eastern Coalfield Limited (S.E.C.L.), Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Chief Medical Services (Cms) South Eastern Coalfield Limited (S.E.C.L.) Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Manager Kurja Ug Mines, Hasdeo Area, S.E.C.L. Bijuri, District - Anuppur (M.P.) 6 - General Manager Kusmunda Area, Secl, District - Korba (C.G.) Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.06.16 11:55:17 +0530 2 7 - Chairman Coal India Limited, Coal Bhawan Premise No.-04, Mar, Plot No. Af-Iii, Action Area-1a, Newtown, Rajarhat, Kolkata-700156. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate with Shri Suraj Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Anmol Sharma, Central Government Counsel For Respondents No.2 to 7 : Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. The petitioner is challenging the acts of the respondents authorities by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Medical Examination Report declaring the petitioner to be unfit for employment has not been decided on merits and it was returned back to the petitioner vide order dated 6.5.2024 stating that the appeal has not been preferred in accordance with Rule 29(j) of the Mines Rules, 1955, as such the proceeding cannot be initiated in the said appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner has duly preferred an appeal in accordance with Rule 29(j) of the Mines Rules, 1955, but, till date, it has not been decided and is pending for consideration, as such the petitioner has filed this petition with prayer that the authorities may be directed to decide his appeal filed under Rule 29(j) of the Mines Rules, 1955 within some stipulated period. 3 2. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs in this petition: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant employment to the petitioner by re-examination by the Medical Board after his squint-eye defect being rectified. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3. The petitioner is a land oustee whose land has been acquired by the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), Kurja Sub Area under Hasdeo Area. In order to provide employment on account of acquisition of land, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Area Medical Officer, Central Hospital, Manendragarh vide letter dated 10.1.2023. On 5.3.2023, the petitioner was medically examined and thereafter on 13.3.2023 the petitioner has been informed that as per medical examination conducted on 5.3.2023 he has been declared unfit for being appointed in the SECL. He has been asked to submit application to the Apex Medical Board within 30 days. Accordingly, on the basis of letter dated 13.3.2023, on 18.3.2023 the petitioner applied for his re-examination before the Apex Medical Board. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Apex Medical Board, SECL, Bilaspur. The Apex Medical Board has also declared the petitioner unfit on account of High Degree of Concomitant Divergent Squint Right 4 Eye, i.e., Form O. Thereafter, vide letter dated 8.8.2023, the petitioner was informed to be unfit by the Apex Medical Board, Bilaspur and he was informed that within 30 days he may do the needful action, i.e., (i) to apply for monetary compensation in lieu of employment, (ii) apply for employment to other eligible dependent as per prevalent policy, (iii) appeal to DGMS, Dhanbad against the Apex Medical Board Report. The petitioner, accordingly, preferred an appeal against the report of the Apex Medical Board, Bilaspur and for re-medical examination for employment in Group A or Group B. On 6.5.2024, the petitioner was informed that he has not filed the appeal in compliance with Rule 29(j) of the Mines Rules, 1955, as such it cannot be entertained. On 20.5.2024, the petitioner has filed duly constituted appeal under Rule 29(j) of the Mines Rules, 1955 through Sub Area Manager and on 29.5.2024 through Manager, Kurja Mines, Hasdeo Area. The aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioner is pending for adjudication and it has not yet been decided. It has been submitted by the petitioner that so far as squint eye is concerned, it is a correctable defect and the petitioner has already been operated, as such the defect has been rectified. The other similarly situated persons, namely, Durgesh Bhaina and Pramod Kumar Mishra, who also suffer from squint eyes have been granted relaxation and they were appointed, as such there is discrimination with the petitioner. The other persons on same footing have been appointed, but, the petitioner has not been considered. It was submitted that the 5 respondents authorities are required to consider the case of the petitioner in appeal and to pass appropriate orders while deciding the appeal of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities are required to pass appropriate orders while considering his appeal under Rule 29(j) of the Mines Rules, 1955. The other similarly situated persons have already been given appointment who are declared unfit for squint eyes. The petitioner has already got operated his eyes. As such, this has to be taken into consideration. From the document dated 30.7.2024 (Annexure P16), it is evident that Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra and Shri Durgesh Bhaina were re-considered though on medical examination under Rule 29B they were issued medical certificate stating that they are having squint eyes. Nonetheless, in the case of the petitioner, it is not being re- considered. As such, necessary orders are required to be passed to the respondents authorities while passing appropriate orders for considering the petitioner for appointment to the post of Group A or Group B. 4. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the SECL/respondents submits that since the petitioner was medically declared unfit, as such he cannot claim employment. He can only get compensation on acquisition of his land. 6 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 6. From bare perusal of the record, it appears that two persons Pramod Kumar Mishra and Durgesh Bhaina were also on same footing. They were declared unfit by the same Central Hospital, Manendragarh. They were issued Form O as they were having squint eyes. However, subsequently, vide letter dated 30.7.2024 they were re-considered and were appointed for Group B service. Upon consideration fo the aforesaid aspect, when the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Rule 29(j) of the Mines Rules, 1955 then the authorities are required to re-consider the case of the petitioner for employment as at present the petitioner has got his eyes operated and it seems that at present the reason for declaring the petitioner unfit does not exist. In the said situation, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent appellate authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner filed under Rule 29(j) of the Mines Rules, 1955. While deciding the said appeal, the respondent appellate authority shall consider this fact that the petitioner has got his eyes operated and the defect due to which the petitioner was declared unfit is nowhere exist at present. Further, there is other similarly situated persons who have been re-considered for employment and they were appointed, as such the case of the petitioner be considered taking the aforesaid aspect of the 7 matter and after consideration necessary orders may be passed in respect of appointment of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, it is directed that the appeal of the petitioner be decided within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh