2025:JHHC:26750-DB -1 of 5- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 117 of 2025 Ambika Prasad Singh aged about 71 yrs son of Late Banshi Singh, resident of village - Gopinathpur, P.O. & P.S. - Nirsa, District - Dhanbad. ... ... Appellant Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Shastri Bhawan, P.O. - Shashtri Bhawan, P.S, - A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi - 110001. 2. The Chairman, Coal India Ltd., Block-3, Plate-A, 3rd Floor, East Kidwai Nagar Office Complex, P.O. & P.S. - Laxmi Nagar, District - Central District New Delhi-110023. 3. M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd through the Chairman-cum-managing Director, Sanctoria, P.O. - Dishergarh, P.S. - Neturia, District - West Burdhaman, West Bengal-713333. 4. The General manager (Personnel), ECL Hqrs, Mugma Area, Employers in relation to Management of Nirsa Area of M/s Easter Coalfields Ltd, Dhanbad, P.O. - Mugma, P.S. - Nirsa, District -Dhanbad, Jharkhand-828204. 5. The Agent Manager, Mugma Area, Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Dhanbad, P.O. - Mugma, P.S. - Nirsa, District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand-828204. 6. The Chief Mining Officer, Asansol Mining Estate Branch, Court Road, P.O. & P.S. Asansol, District - Paschim Bardhaman, Pin code-713304.. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate. Mr. Kumar Udayan, Advocate For the UOI : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI For the ECL : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate. --------- 02/Dated: 02.09.2025 I.A. No. 2116 of 2025 1. For the reasons stated in this Interlocutory Application, which is duly supported by an affidavit filed by the appellant, we find sufficient cause to condone the delay of 39 days that has crept up in filing the Appeal. 2. Accordingly, the aforesaid delay is condoned. This Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. 2025:JHHC:26750-DB -2 of 5- L.P.A. No. 117 of 2025 3. The writ petitioner, who was aged about 70 years at the time of filing of the writ petition and is now more than 71 years, has filed the instant appeal being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of his writ petition. 4. The appellant was an employee of Shri Durga Boka Pahari Colliery, Nirsha, Dhanbad in 1979. According to him, under Section 14 of the Coal Nationalisation Act, every workman who was in the employment immediately before the appointed date automatically became the employee of the Central Government or, as the case may be, of the Government company, but the Eastern Coalfield Limited, (in short ‘ECL’) which is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. and Government of India Undertaking, did not take the employees of Shri Durga Boka Pahari Colliery, including the appellant in employment since ECL had not started mining operation in the colliery. 5. Being aggrieved by the action of the Government and the Coal Companies, the Bihar Pradesh Colliery Mazdoor Congress and the appellant filed W.P.(C) No. 417 of 1989 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with a prayer to treat the petitioners and similarly situated workmen of Shri Durga Boka Pahari Colliery, as continued employees of ECL with a further prayer to forthwith start the operation of the collieries situated at Nirsa, Dhanbad. The aforesaid writ petition came to be heard on 24.07.1989 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following order: - “After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, we direct that if the respondents start the colliery, they will recruit the petitioners to the extent of their requirement. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.” 2025:JHHC:26750-DB -3 of 5- 6. It is further allegation of the appellant that in the year 2010 Captain Jainarayan Prasad Nishad, Member of the Parliament requested the Management of the ECL for consideration of the case of the workmen who were earlier employed in Shri Durga Boka Pahari Colliery, and the matter was accordingly taken up with the ECL, who showed the inability to consider the representation of the workmen. This action of the Company was assailed by the appellant on behalf of 900 workers in W.P.(C) No. 4918 of 2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 28.03.2019 giving liberty to the writ petitioner to file representation before the respondents within four weeks and the respondents, in turn, were directed to consider and decide the same within 12 weeks. In compliance to the direction of this Court, the appellant submitted the representation before the 3rd respondent on 25.04.2019. However, the same was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 15.07.2019. 7. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the petitioner then approached the writ Court by filing the instant writ petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- i. A writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order Ref. No. ECL/GM/MA/19/1375 dated 15.7.2019 passed in compliance with the order dated 28.3.2019 of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 4918 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for recruitment/employment in the company has been rejected by the respondent authority. ii A writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus for a direction upon the respondent authorities to recruitment/employment petitioner's legal heirs and similarly situated workmen in Respondent ECL in compliance with the order dated 24.7.1989 in writ petition passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 2025:JHHC:26750-DB -4 of 5- iii. A writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus for a direction upon the respondent authorities to forthwith start mining operation of Durga Boka Pahari Colliery, Nirsa, Dhanbad. 8. The learned writ Court dismissed the writ petition constraining the appellant to file the instant appeal. 9. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since every workman who was in employment immediately before the appointed date to be the employee of the Central Government or as the case may be of the Government Company, therefore, under such circumstances, the ECL was bound to take the employees of Shri Durga Boka Pahari Colliery, including the appellant in the employment and having failed to do so, the writ petition ought to have been allowed by the learned writ Court. 10. However we find no merit in this contention, for the reasons that it is only when the services of the appellant and other similarly situated persons were not being taken over on the same plea as raised above, it was only then, the appellant and others approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 417 of 1989 and the only direction passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was that in case the respondents would start the colliery they would recruit the petitioners to the extent of their requirements. 11. It is not in dispute that the collieries even as on date have not been started and therefore, there is no question of the services of the petitioner or similarly situated persons being taken up by the respondents. 2025:JHHC:26750-DB -5 of 5- 12. As regards the direction to the Central Government or the State Government or the management of the collieries to make up the collieries operative, suffice it to say that such directions cannot be issued by this Court as the same pertains to a policy decision of the Central Government or the State Government. Moreover, the appellant as observed above, is more than 71 years of age today and obviously, no direction for his employment can be otherwise issued. 13. For all the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Pending Application, if any, stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) N.A.F.R. APK/VK