2026:JHHC:229 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3993 of 2019 --------- Tikam Chand Prasad, aged about 71 years, S/o late Hari Prasad, R/o Dharjori, near Sarswati Vidya Mandir, Bhuli, P.O. + P.S. Bhuli, District Dhanbad. ....Petitioner Versus 1. M/s. B.C.C.L. through its C.M.D., Koila Bhawan, P.O. + P.S.- Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad. 2. The General Manager, P.B. Area of M/s B.C.C.L., P.O. + P.S.- Pootkee, District-Dhanbad. 3. The Chief Manager (Personnel) of M/s B.C.C.L., Pootkee P.B. Area, Р.О. + P.S.- Pootkee, District – Dhanbad. 4. The Area Manager (Personnel) of M/s B.C.C.L., P.B. Area, P.O. + P.S. - Pootkee, District - Dhanbad. ....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocates --------- 10/Dated:-07.01.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 27/29.11.2018 (Annexure- 6), issued by the 4th respondent; whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected for granting S.L.U. (Service Link Upgradation) / S.L.P. (Service Link Promotion) with effect from 01.07.1990 in Technical Grade-I and with effect from 01.01.1999 in Technical and Assistant A–I and one increment with effect from 01.01.2007. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that after the Award was notified in favour of the petitioner, the respondent-Coal Company challenged the said Award up-till Division Bench of this Court, however, when they failed, an agreement was entered between the petitioner and the Coal Company; whereby the 2026:JHHC:229 2 amount of 50% backwages was reduced to 25% backwages. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-4 which is the appointment letter dated 31.05.2002 which was pursuant to the memorandum of settlement (Annexure-3) and submits that the petitioner was reinstated in service in existing capacity/grade with effect from 31.05.2002 with continuity in service and 25% of his full backwages. 5. Relying upon this clause, learned counsel submits that though the petitioner is not entitled for 50% as per the Award; rather 25% as per the settlement, but since he was reinstated with continuity in service, therefore, the benefit as claimed for by the petitioner is maintainable and the respondents may be directed to take a decision favourably as in continuity in service the petitioner was entitled for S.L.U. (Service Link Upgradation) / S.L.P. (Service Link Promotion). 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Coal Company submits that the issue with regard to binding nature of settlement agreement has been set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bokaro Steel Plant and Others Vs. Ajay Kumar (L.P.A. No. 340 of 2019) wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held at para 9, 10 and 11 as under: “9. However, the writ Court has held that a workman cannot be deprived of service-linked benefit which shall accrue to him on his reinstatement in service. 10. The writ Court has held as under: “... …. … From material available on record, it appears that the settlement has arrived between the parties wherein although the petitioner has been reinstated in the service but he has been allowed only 50% of the back wages and other consequential 2026:JHHC:229 3 benefits in terms of as is admissible in the case of re- employment. In the case of re-employment, the petitioner will lose all the benefits who has accrued to him on account of his past service. Snatching benefit is totally unreasonable on the part of the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioner has been reinstated, so consequential benefits should be in terms of reinstatement not in terms of reemployment. In view of above facts, the present writ petition is, hereby, allowed only to the limited extent that the petitioner will be entitled for other consequential benefits as if he has been reinstated not reemployed. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition is, hereby, allowed.” 11. In the first place, the writ Court was denuded of its power to go into the question of unequal bargain or legality in the terms of settlement dated 6th March 2001. Merely because a liberty was given to the workman to move representation the writ petitioner could not have challenged the legality of the settlement dated 6th March 2001 in the second round of litigation.” 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, the law is no more res integra that memorandum of settlement is of binding nature which was entered in the year 2002 itself. However, the Court cannot ignore the reinstatement letter dated 31.05.2002 which was issued in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the memorandum of settlement of the even date; wherein the petitioner was reinstated in service in existing capacity/grade with effect from 31.05.2002 with continuity in service and 25% backwages. 8. As stated hereinabove, there is no quarrel with regard to binding nature of the settlement/agreement; however, the memorandum of settlement does not in specific term has either accepted the S.L.U. (Service Link Upgradation) / S.L.P. (Service Link Promotion) or denied the same but admittedly, in the reinstatement letter dated 31.05.2002, petitioner has been reinstated in existing capacity/cadre with effect from 31.05.2002 2026:JHHC:229 4 with continuity in service; as such, interest of justice would suffice by directing the petitioner to approach the respondent No.2 to make the claim what has been claimed in this writ application within a period of six weeks from today. If any such claim is made before the 2nd respondent, he shall look into the matter and take a decision by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations in the backdrop of the reinstatement letter dated 31.05.2002 within a period of 16 weeks. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled as per their existing rule with regard to S.L.U. (Service Link Upgradation) / S.L.P. (Service Link Promotion) coupled with the fact of continuity in service, necessary monetary benefit shall be extended within a further period of 8 weeks. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the order dated 27/29.11.2018 (Annexure-6) is quashed and set aside and the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) January 7, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 20.01.2026