2026:JHHC:3445 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.261 of 2021 ----- Birendra Kumar Singh, aged about 61 years, son of Rajgir Singh, Resident of A-09/157, Sandi Rajrappa, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District - Ramgarh. … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. Central Coalfields Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Ltd. having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District Jharkhand. Ranchi, 3. The General Manager (MP & IR), Central Coalfields Ltd. having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The General Manager, Samadhan Cell, Central Coalfields Ltd. having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The General Manager, Rajrappa Area, Central Coalfields Ltd., having its office at Rajrappa, P.O. -Rajrappa Project, P.S. Rajrappa, District Ramgarh. 6. The Staff Officer (P&A), Rajrappa Area, Central Coalfields Ltd., P.O. Rajrappa Project, P.S. Rajrappa, District - Ramgarh. 7. The Project Officer at Rajrappa Project, Central Coalfields Ltd., having its office at Rajrappa, P.Ο. Rajrappa Project, P.S. Rajrappa, District Ramgarh. 8. The Deputy Personnel Manager at Rajrappa Washery Project, Central Coalfields Ltd., having its office at Rajrappa, P.O. Rajrappa Project, P.S. Rajrappa, District - Ramgarh. … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Darshana Poddar Mishra, Advocate Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, Advocate …...... 05 /09.02.2026: Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. The petitioner claims that his pay should have been fixed keeping parity with one Lakshman Prasad who already retired on 31.01.2008. 2026:JHHC:3445 2 3. From the records especially from paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, I find that the petitioner joined the company on 17.11.1980 in the pay-scale of 404-9-512 and his annual date of increment was fixed on 1st December whereas Lakshman Prasad joined in the company on 02.02.1981 in the same pay-scale but with the date of annual increment on 1st February every year. The petitioner has heavily relied upon the note-sheet dated 18.11.2008 wherein one of the officer of the company noted that after implementation of NCWA-V w.e.f. 01.07.1991, the basic pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 1953/- whereas of Lakshman Prasad’s pay was fixed at Rs. 1996/-. There is difference which needs to be addressed, but ultimately the representation of the petitioner was rejected on 2010. Thus, the petitioner has approached this Court in 2021 by filing this writ petition. 4. An exercise has to be undertaken as to how the pay of the petitioner and of Lakshman Prasad was fixed and what are circulars governing the field and many other factual aspects requires consideration, which needs leading of evidence. 5. Admittedly the petitioner is a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Leelavathi N. and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others” reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2253 has held as under: 36. A careful perusal of the aforesaid judgments leads us to the conclusion that where an efficacious alternate remedy is available, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters falling squarely within the domain of the Tribunals. 6. The petitioner admittedly is a workman and there are statutory provision for redressal of grievance under the Industrial Dispute Act. Labour Courts and Tribunals are constituted to resolve these type of disputes. Since there are provisions in the Industrial Dispute Act to raise dispute in respect of grievance of the workman which can be adjudicated, I am not inclined to entertain this 2026:JHHC:3445 3 application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. This writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise the dispute before the Tribunal. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 09.02.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 12.02.2026