2026:JHHC:21582-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 805 of 2025 1. Coal India Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its office at Coal Bhawan, Premise No. 4 MAR, Plot No. AF-III, AA-1A, PO-New Town, PS-Rajarhat, Kolkata 2. The Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi ... … Appellants Versus 1. Purushottam Kumar, S/o Sri Manoj Kumar, R/o Village-Maranchi, PO & PS-Maranchi, District-Patna, Bihar 2. The Chief Medical Officer-cum-Medial Superintendent/Head of the Hospital, Referral Hospital, Mokama, Patna ... … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate Mr. Shubham Malviya, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : ----- Order No. 03 Dated: 22.07.2026 I.A. No. 15695 of 2025 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Mehta for the appellants. 2. There is delay of 135 days in instituting this appeal. 3. Considering the cause shown, we condone this delay and dispose of the I.A. L.P.A. No. 805 of 2025 4. We have heard Mr. Mehta on the merits of the appeal and we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of this case, no interference is warranted with the learned Single Judge’s order dated 09.06.2025 allowing W.P.(S) No. 3579 of 2020 instituted by the respondent no. 1 herein against the order dated 22.09.2020/05.10.2020 by which the services of the respondent no. 1 as Management Trainee (Civil), Coal India 2026:JHHC:21582-DB 2 Ltd. came to be terminated. 5. The termination order dated 22.09.2020/05.10.2020 was issued on the premise that the respondent no. 1 had submitted a fake “Persons with Disabilities” (PwD) certificate at the time of his appointment and based upon such fake certificate, he secured employment with the appellant-CIL. 6. In the writ petition, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Chief Medical Officer-cum-Medical Superintendent/Head of Referral Hospital, Mokama, who had issued the disability certificate dated 28.04.2011. The affidavit clearly and unambiguously states that the certificate was not fake and was issued by the Referral Hospital, Mokama, after following all due procedures. 7. In the context of the communication dated 28.12.2018 (Annexure-15), which stated that the certificate dated 28.04.2011 was not found in the hospital's records, the affidavit explained that the communication was maliciously issued and that its contents were incorrect. 8. We refer to paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Chief Medical Officer-cum-Medical Superintendent/Head of the Referral Hospital, Mokama, Patna, which read as under: “10. That letter no. 344 dated 25.09.2018, letter issued by in-charge Medical Officer Referral Hospital, Mokama, Patna addressing to Vikram Pratap Singh, Deputy Manager, PEE, Central Coalfields Ltd., Darbhanga House, with regard to reference of letter no. CCL/EE/795/PK/MT(C)- 2018/1655, dated 05.09.2018, it is informed that enclosed disability certificate no. 16/28.04.2011, 2026:JHHC:21582-DB 3 dated 13.01.2018 has been issued by this office and same is correct and genuine. 11. That the medical certificate of Purushottam Kumar, who was examined by the team of State Level Medical Board, Govt. of Bihar, dated 18.02.2020, and he found 45% disability. 12. That a malicious letter no. 359 dated 28.12.2018 has been issued by the duty in-charge medical officer and Peon on which stated there is no record found in the hospital regarding disability of Purushottam Kumar i.e. not correct in fact Purushottam Kumar, has been examined by the medical board on dated 13.01.2018 and it is found/accreted that he is 45% disable. The report and record is already available in the hospital and the report which is issued by this hospital is genuine.” 9. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the fundamental base for the impugned termination letter dated 22.09.2020/05.10.2020 was displaced and found to be incorrect. In such clear and unambiguous circumstances, we cannot fault the learned Single Judge for allowing W.P.(S) No. 3579 of 2020 filed by the respondent no. 1. 10. In paragraph-9 of the learned Single Judge’s order, there is a reference to the appellants subjecting the respondent no. 1 (the original petitioner) to further medical examination in which, it was established that the respondent no. 1 was indeed a person with disability, but this time, the disability was assessed below 40%, which was below the requisite threshold. 11. Obviously, such further examination or re-examination cannot be held to be relevant once there is clear proof that the 2026:JHHC:21582-DB 4 certificate dated 28.04.2011, which was submitted at the time of employment of the respondent no. 1, was found to be genuine in all respects. 12. Besides, the re-examination was admittedly after about 6 - 7 years, and therefore, some changes cannot be ruled out. Ultimately, even the determination of disability is a matter of opinion and considering the fact that the certificate submitted by the respondent no. 1 at the time of securing employment was found to be absolutely genuine, the appellants’ action of terminating the respondent no. 1, who is now admittedly a person with disability, was correctly interfered. 13. Mr. Mehta submitted that the appellants had acted bona fide based upon the communication dated 28.12.2018 issued by the Referral Hospital, Mokama. Therefore, Mr Mehta submitted that the appellants should not be burdened with the payment of all back wages and consequential benefits. 14. Even though the appellants’ action may not be mala fide given the communication dated 28.12.2018 received by them still, once it is established that this communication dated 28.12.2018 was itself issued maliciously by the peon of the Referral Hospital, Mokama without any authority and without verifying the records which were very much available at the Referral Hospital, Mokama, the respondent no. 1 herein cannot be made to suffer. 15. For no legal and valid reason, the respondent no. 1 was out of service for 5 years, and therefore, there is no fault in the 2026:JHHC:21582-DB 5 direction for payment of back wages and other consequential benefits. 16. Accordingly, the fact that the appellants’ action may not be vitiated by mala fides may be a good ground not to impose any cost on the appellants. However, this is not a good ground to prolong the misery of the respondent no. 1 when, even according to the belated re-examination held by the appellants, the respondent no. 1 is found to be a person with disability, and further, there was nothing fake about the certificate dated 28.04.2011 produced by him for securing employment. The Appellant must now comply with the Learned Single Judge’s impugned order within 4 weeks from today. 17. This appeal is therefore dismissed without any order for costs. 18. Any other I.As, if pending, will not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 22, 2026 Manish/Ritesh N.A.F.R Uploaded on 24.07.2026