2026:JHHC:5412-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. (Cvl.) Case No.807 of 2025 ------ 1. Bir Banshi Singh 2. Adhotia Kamin 3. Malti Bai 4. Sanaw Ram 5. Panmati Devi 6. Sumitra Devi 7. Ako Devi …. …. Petitioners Versus 1. Nilendu Kr. Singh, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, the Central Coalfields Limited, having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.- Darbhanga House, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 2. Vishwapati Nath Pandey, the Project Officer, Kargali Washery, B & K Area, Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. & P.S.-Bermo, District- Bokaro. 3. State of Jharkhand ..... .... Opp. Parties CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------ For the Petitioners : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate For O.P.-State : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II For O.P. Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate ------ 03/Dated: 24.02.2026 I.A. (Civil) No.2493 of 2025 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed, in pursuant to the defect, as has been pointed out by the office. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the instant contempt case is being confined to the petitioner nos.4 to 7, while, the name of the petitioner nos.1 to 3, namely, Bir Banshi Singh, Adhotia Kamin and Malti Rai respectively, be allowed to be deleted, since, they have moved separate contempt 2026:JHHC:5412-DB 2 application. 3. Considering the prayer made in the instant application, the instant contempt case is being confined so far as it relates to petitioner nos.4 to 7. 4. Office is to re-number them as petitioner nos.1, 2, 3 and 4. 5. The names of the petitioner nos.1 to 3 are to be deleted. 6. Office is to carry out necessary deletion in view of the fact that they have preferred separate contempt case. 7. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. (Civil) No.2493 of 2025 stands disposed of. Cont. (Cvl.) Case No.807 of 2025 8. The instant contempt case is against the opposite parties for their alleged, willful and deliberate non-compliance of the order dated 21.09.2023. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted by referring to the order dated 21.09.2023 which has been said to be not complied with, by which, the award although has been quashed but the petitioners have not been reinstated, rather, in pursuant to the liberty granted to the opposite party-Management, has proceeded again and inflicted punishment of dismissal from service, so far as the petitioner nos.2 to 7 are concerned. 10. It has been contended that the normal consequence would be, after quashing the award passed in reference case no.58 of 1992, the reinstatement in service and only thereafter, the concerned opposite party ought to have been exercised the liberty granted by 2026:JHHC:5412-DB 3 this Court which have been culminated into the order of dismissal. 11. While on the other hand, Mr. Ankit Vishal, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted by referring to the order said to be not complied with, wherein, there is no direction for reinstatement in service, rather, while quashing the award dated 21.04.2017 and the order passed by the learned Single Judge, by which, the award has been upheld, the liberty has been granted to the opposite party to proceed afresh. The opposite parties have proceeded and the said proceedings have been concluded by passing the order of dismissal. 12. There is no direction passed by the Court, which is the subject matter of the present contempt case of reinstatement in service, hence, the instant contempt case is not fit to be proceeded. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 14. This Court is exercising the jurisdiction conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 15. Article 215 of the Constitution of India confers power upon the Court being the Court of Record to initiate proceedings for contempt if there is any willful and deliberate non-compliance of the order passed as per the definition as available under the contempt of Courts Court. The word ‘willful and deliberate’ has been defined as under Section 2(b) thereof. The procedure has been provided under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 16. The power which is to be exercised to initiate a proceeding for 2026:JHHC:5412-DB 4 contempt for non-compliance of the order, if the said order will be said to be willful and deliberately defied. 17. This Court, in order to consider as to whether there is any direction passed by this Court of reinstatement in service based upon that the present proceeding is to be proceeded, has thought it proper to consider the order passed by the Court, which is the subject matter of the present contempt case and found therefrom that while quashing the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, as also, the order passed by the learned Single Judge by which the award has been upheld, this Court has granted liberty to the respondent-opposite party herein to proceed for the purpose of taking fresh decision. 18. It is, thus, evident that there is no direction for reinstatement in service for the intervening period, i.e., for the period from the quashing of the order of termination and the date of passing of the fresh order in view of the liberty granted by this Court, as under paragraph-36 of the order dated 21.09.2023, for ready reference, paragraphs-34 to 36 are being quoted as under:- “34. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, all the letters of termination which had been issued to the workmen as a consequence of the directions issued by the Industrial Tribunal contained in the Award dated 21.04.2017 are also quashed. 35. However, charge-sheets in terms of the standing order having been issued to the workmen in connection with the allegation of 2026:JHHC:5412-DB 5 employment by impersonation are required to be taken to a logical end. It is not in dispute that the departmental enquiry remained pending and the same could not be taken to a logical end in view of the Award dated 21.04.2017 which was followed by the order of removal of the writ petitioners vide notices dated 07.09.2017/14.09.2017. 36. Accordingly, the management is at liberty to proceed with the charge-sheet issued to one or the other workman for alleged misconduct in accordance with law. The concerned workmen/legal representative of the deceased workmen who are the appellants before this Court to appear before the respondent no.2 on 11.10.2023. Upon their appearance, the CCL shall proceed in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in terms of the standing order latest by 30.04.2024.” 19. It has been stated in the show cause notice that liberty, as has been granted in paragraph-36 of the order which is the subject matter of the present contempt case, has been exercised which ultimately culminated into the order of dismissal. The dismissal order therefore is there. 20. This Court, therefore, is of the view that in absence of any specific direction of reinstatement of the order which is being alleged to be not complied with since is not available, hence, it is not the case where the contempt case is to be proceeded further. 21. Accordingly, the instant contempt case stands dismissed. 2026:JHHC:5412-DB 6 22. However, it is left open upon the petitioners to challenge the order of dismissal, if the petitioners, so wish by approaching the appropriate forum. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai J.) 24.02.2026 Rohit/-