2026:JHHC:19897 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 4649 of 2022 M/s. Tata Pigments Limited, an existing Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at Sakchi, Boulevard, Jamshedpur, P.O. Bistupur, P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum and having its Plant at Jugsalai Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Jugsalai, District East Singhbhum, through its authorized signatory, namely, Mrs. Navneet Kaur Bhatia, aged about 36 years, wife of Gagan Deep Singh Bhatia, Resident of Gaushala Road P.O. & P.S Jugsalai Town- Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 2. The Special Secretary, Department of Labor, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Shram Bhawan, Doranda, P. O & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi. Employees' State Insurance Corporation through its Director, at Regional office, Namkum, P.O & P.S- Namkum, District- Ranchi. 3. The Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Town & District Ranchi. 4. Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, at Regional Office, Namkum P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi. 5. Assistant Director (Ins. IV), Employees' State Insurance Corporation, having its office at Regional Office, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi. 6. S.S.O. Inspection Division, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Jamshedpur Division, P.O. Golmuri, P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. … … Respondents With W.P.(L) No. 4650 of 2022 M/s. Tata Pigments Limited, an existing Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at Sakchi, Boulevard, Jamshedpur, P.O. Bistupur, P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum and having its Plant at Jugsalai Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Jugsalai, District East Singhbhum, through its authorized signatory, namely, Mrs. Navneet Kaur Bhatia, aged about 36 years, wife of Gagan Deep Singh Bhatia, Resident of Gaushala Road P.O. & P.S Jugsalai Town- Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Government 2026:JHHC:19897 2 of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 2. The Special Secretary, Department of Labor, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Shram Bhawan, Doranda, P.O & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi. Employees' State Insurance Corporation through its Director, at Regional office, Namkum, P.O & P. S- Namkum, District- Ranchi. 3. The Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Town & District Ranchi. 4. Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, at Regional Office, Namkum P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi. 5. Assistant Director (Ins. IV), Employees' State Insurance Corporation, having its office at Regional Office, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi. 6. S.S.O. Inspection Division, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Jamshedpur Division, P.O. Golmuri, P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Senior Advocate Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate For the ESIC : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate For the State : Ms. Priti Priyamvada, AC to GP-V [in W.P.(L) No. 4649 of 2022] : Mr. Krishna Kr. Bhatt, AC to SC-I [in W.P.(L) No. 4650 of 2022] --- 22/06.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. W.P.(L) No. 4649 of 2022 has been filed for the following reliefs: “i. For issuance of writ/ order/ direction of an appropriate nature for quashing of the demand notice dated 29.08.2022 vide Ref. No. 60000010710000306 / Bima -IV and further quashing the letter dated 29/08/2022 as contained in Letter No. 60000010710000306 / Bima -IV (Annexure-6 series) wherein directions have been issued upon the petitioners to comply with the demand notice dated 29.08.2022, failing which legal actions will be initiated against the petitioners. ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including writ of certiorari for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 718 dated 06-05-2022 (Annexure-3) passed by the Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand-Respondent no.1, whereby and where under, the application filed by the petitioner for exemption in terms of the provision of Sections 87 and 88 read 2026:JHHC:19897 3 with Section 91A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 has been rejected for the period 1.1. 2022 to 31.12.2022. iii. Your Lordship may further be pleased to stay the demand notice dated 29.08.2022 vide Ref. No. 60000010710000306 / Bima -IV during the pendency of the instant writ petition. iv. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to proceed with the matter in pursuant to order dated 06.05.2022; and/or v. For any other writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner.” 3. W.P.(L) No. 4650 of 2022 has been filed for the following reliefs: “i. For issuance of writ/order/ direction of an appropriate nature for quashing of the demand notice dated 29.08.2022 vide Ref. No. 60000010710000306/ Bima-IV and further quashing the letter dated 29/08/2022 as contained in Letter No. 60000010710000306 / Bima -IV (Annexure-6 series) wherein directions have been issued upon the petitioners to comply with the demand notice dated 29.08.2022, failing which legal actions will be initiated against the petitioners. ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including writ of certiorari for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 719 dated 06-05-2022 (Annexure-3) passed by the Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand-Respondent no.1, whereby and where under, the application filed by the petitioner for exemption in terms of the provision of Sections 87 and 88 read with Section 91A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 has been rejected for the period 1.1.2021 to 31.12.2021. iii. Your Lordship may further be pleased to stay the demand notice dated 29.08.2022 vide Ref. No. 60000010710000306 / Bima -IV during the pendency of the instant writ petition. iv. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to proceed with the matter in pursuant to order dated 06.05.2022; and/or v. For any other writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner.” 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in both the cases submits that the impugned order rejecting the claim for exemption 2026:JHHC:19897 4 passed Sections 87 and 88 read with Section 91A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1948”) are almost identical except for the period to which they relate. In W.P.(L) No. 4650 of 2022 the period involved is January, 2021 to December, 2021 and in W.P.(L) No. 4649 of 2022 the period involved is January, 2022 to December, 2022. 5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of orders contained in Memo No. 652 dated 28.03.2025 which is related to the period January, 2025 to December, 2025 and memo no. 2187 dated 26.12.2025 related to the period from January, 2026 to December, 2028. However, the memo no. 2187 dated 26.12.2025 reveals at the top that it is for the period from 01.01.2026 to 31.12.2026, but at the bottom it mentioned that it is related to the period of three years i.e., from 01.01.2026 to 31.12.2028. The learned counsel is unable to explain the inconsistency in the memo no. 2187 dated 26.12.2025 but it is not in dispute that currently, the petitioner is enjoying the exemption. 6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a detailed order has been passed with respect to grant of exemption for the period of 2025 wherein the terms and conditions of employment have been considered and exemption has been extended. So far as the impugned orders in both these writ petitions are concerned, same terms and conditions of employment have become the reason for rejection of claim for exemption, except for one item i.e., extended sickness benefit. 7. The learned Senior counsel submits that it is surprising that for same terms and conditions of employment, the concerned authority of the state government responsible for taking decision on the point of grant of exemption is taking different view for different years as different persons are holding the post from time to time. This has created a situation of chaos and there is complete uncertainty in the mind of the parties as to whether the terms and conditions of employment of the employees of the petitioner company are in consonance with the requirement under the provisions of the aforesaid 2026:JHHC:19897 5 Act of 1948 to avail the benefit of exemption. The learned Senior counsel has also submitted that the orders of different years are also not being placed before the authority so that an appropriate view could be taken. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent- ESIC has submitted that the exemption would essentially depend upon the terms and conditions of arrangement of medical and other facilities made between Tata Main Hospital (TMH) /Tata Steel Limited and the present petitioner and each year may have different arrangements and therefore, each case has to be examined in terms of the arrangement between TMH/Tata Steel Limited and the petitioner and in the light of the terms and conditions of employment of the employees/benefits extended to ex-employees. 9. However, from the perusal of the impugned orders passed in the present cases, it appears that no reference has been made with respect to the terms and conditions of the arrangement between the petitioner and TMH/Tata Steel Limited. 10. Learned counsels for the State are unable to justify different views taken by the authority with respect to the same service conditions and it is not in dispute that there is no consideration of the arrangement between the petitioner and TMH/Tata Steel Limited while passing the impugned orders. They have also perused the aforesaid two orders which have been produced by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner(s) contained in Memo No. 652 dated 28.03.2025 and memo no. 2187 dated 26.12.2025 whereby exemption has been extended to the petitioner, though for different periods. 11. The learned counsels for the state submit that the matter may be remanded so that appropriate order may be passed with respect to the periods involved in the present cases as well. The learned Counsels have submitted that all the relevant materials for the purposes of deciding the claim for exemption for each period be directed to be produced by the petitioner including the terms and conditions of arrangement between the petitioner and TMH/Tata Steel Limited with respect to the employees/ex-employees of the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:19897 6 12. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that different view is being taken by the respondent no. 2 from time to time for different years with respect to entitlement of exemption under the aforesaid Act of 1948, although apparently, the employees in the petitioner- company are governed by the same terms and conditions of employment and it has become difficult to reconcile different orders. However, at the same time, there can be no dispute that the terms and conditions of arrangement for extending medical and other benefits to employees/ex-employees of the petitioner between TMH/Tata Steel Limited and the petitioner, as may be applicable from time to time, also has a bearing with respect to the claim for exemption. 13. In view of the orders contained in Memo No. 652 dated 28.03.2025 and memo no. 2187 dated 26.12.2025 as produced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing, whereby exemption has been extended for the years 2025/2026 after considering some of the heads of service conditions regarding medical benefits and refusal to extend the benefits of exemption for the periods 2021 and 2022 involved in these cases under the same heads of service conditions regarding medical benefits (except one), the impugned orders in these two writ petitions being inconsistent with the aforesaid two orders granting exemption for different periods cannot be sustained in law. As mentioned above, the learned counsels for the respondents are also not able to reconcile inconsistent orders during the course of arguments. 14. In aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent no. 2 should consider the matter afresh and examine the case of exemption of the petitioner for the period involved in these writ petitions in the light of various orders with respect to claim for exemption of the petitioner passed from time to time and also in the light of the terms and conditions of employment of the employees /ex-employees of the petitioner and the terms and conditions of extension of benefit by TMH/Tata Steel Limited to the employees/ex-employees of the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:19897 7 15. In order to enable the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order with respect to the periods involved in these writ petitions, the impugned order contained in Memo No. 718 dated 06.05.2022 [Annexure-3 to W.P.(L) No. 4649 of 2022 (period - 2022) ] and order contained in Memo No. 719 dated 06.05.2022 [Annexure-3 to W.P.(L) No. 4650 of 2022 (period- 2021)] are set-aside. 16. Accordingly, the petitioner and the concerned officers of the ESIC are directed to appear before the respondent no. 2 on 22nd July, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. with all the relevant records and the entire records of this case by filing a representation before the respondent no. 2. 17. The respondent no. 2 shall decide the applications seeking exemption for the period 2021 and 2022 strictly in accordance with law taking into consideration the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1948 and the rules framed thereunder and other materials including the materials as indicated above after himself granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. 18. The order to be passed by the respondent no. 2 be communicated to the parties through speed post and also through e- mail, and the e-mail id and the contact number be furnished by the parties to the aforesaid authority on 22nd July, 2026 itself. 19. At this, learned Senion counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if so required, the authority may also issue notice to Tata Steel Limited/TMH as their agreement will fall directly into consideration and it is they who are providing the medical facilities through an arrangement. It is sufficient to observe that if the aforesaid authority so requires, he may call upon Tata Steel Limited/TMH to explain the position. 20. In order to ensure that there is no gap, the respondent no. 2 may call upon the parties to file their written submissions. 21. It is relevant to note that the petitioner has filed different writ petitions for different periods out of which two writ petitions have 2026:JHHC:19897 8 been disposed of; they are W.P.(C) No. 2808 of 2005 decided on 22.06.2026 and W.P.(C) No. 6957 of 2016 decided on 18.06.2026. In W.P.(C) No. 2808 of 2005, following has been held: Period 10/1996 to 12/1999 No application was filed seeking exemption. The petitioner cannot escape the liability for this period. Period 2000 The application seeking exemption is required to be considered. The petitioner and ESIC were directed to appear on 13th July, 2026 before the authority. Period 2001 The application seeking exemption is required to be considered. The petitioner and ESIC were directed to appear on 13th July, 2026 before the authority. Period 2002-2004 Application seeking exemption has been rejected vide order dated 23.07.2005 for the period 2002 and vide order dated 14.05.2007 for the period 2003 to 2004. The orders refusing to grant exemption were not challenged in the said writ petition and they attained finality. W.P.(C) No. 6957 of 2016 W.P.(C) No. 6957 of 2016 is related to the period 2011 to 2014. Vide order dated 18.06.2026 passed in the said writ petition, the application seeking exemption has been directed to be considered and the parties to appear on 08th July, 2026. 22. These writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 2026:JHHC:19897 9 23. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:06.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading: 08.07.2026