2026:JHHC:21943 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 3900 of 2021 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 and office at Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, District East Singhbhum, through its authorized signatory, namely, Yogesh Hebalkar, aged about 52 years, son of Vasant Pandurang Hebalkar, Resident of R.No.18, Chamaraiya Guest House, Tata Steel Limited B- Road, Northern, P.O. & P.S. & Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Labour Employment, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 2. The Special Secretary, Department of Labour, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Shram Bhawan, Doranda, P.O & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi 3. Employees' State Insurance Corporation through its Director, at Regional office, Namkum, P.O & P.S-Namkum, District- Ranchi. 4. The Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Town & District Ranchi. 5. Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, at Regional Office, Namkum P.O. & P.S. Namkom, District Ranchi. 6. Assistant Director (Ins. IV), Employees' State Insurance Corporation, having its office at Regional Office, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi. 7. 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. 4287 of 2021 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 and office at Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, District East Singhbhum, through its authorized signatory, namely, Yogesh Hebalkar, aged about 52 years, son of Vasant Pandurang Hebalkar, Resident of R.No.18, Chamaraiya Guest House, Tata Steel Limited B- Road, Northern, P.O. & P.S. & 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:21943 2 of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 2. The Special Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Shram Bhawan, Doranda, P.O & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi. 3. Employees' State Insurance Corporation through its Director, at Regional office, Namkum, P.O & P.S-Namkum, District- Ranchi. 4. The Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Town & District Ranchi. 5. Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, at Regional Office, Namkum P.O. & P.S. Namkom, District Ranchi. 6. Assistant Director (Ins. IV), Employees' State Insurance Corporation, having its office at Regional Office, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi. 7. 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 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the Resp.-ESIC : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kishore Kr. Singh, SC-V : Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC-V --- 21/23.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. W.P.(L) No. 3900 of 2021 has been filed for the following reliefs: “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including writ of certiorari for quashing of the order contained in Memo No.434 dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure-2) passed by the Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand-Respondent no.1, whereby and whereunder, the application filed by the petitioner for exemption has been rejected for the period from 1.1.2018 to 31.12.2018 and 1.1.2019 to 31.12.2020 in terms of the provision of Sections 87 and 88 read with Section 91(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; and (ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of certiorari, for quashing the Letter No. 587 dated 30.08.2021 (Annexure-3) issued by the Assistant Director, Authorized Officer (Ins. IV), Regional Office, Jharkhand- 2026:JHHC:21943 3 Respondent No.6, whereby and whereunder, a demand has been raised under Section 45A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, claiming outstanding contribution for the period from January, 2017 to December, 2018 and January, 2019 to December, 2019 amounting to Rs.46,97,501/-; and/or (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to proceed with the matter pursuant to the order dated 30.3.2021 and the demand notice issued letter dated 30.8.2021; and /or (iv) 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. 4287 of 2021 has been filed for the following reliefs: “i. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including writ of certiorari for quashing of the order contained in Memo No.354 dated 12.03.2021 (Annexure-2) passed by the Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand-Respondent no.1, whereby and whereunder, the application filed by the petitioner for exemption has been rejected for the period from 1.1.2017 to 31.12.2017 in terms of the provision of Sections 87 and 88 read with Section 91(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; and ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to proceed with the matter in pursuant to order dated 12.3.2021; and / or iii. 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 counsel for the petitioner submits that the periods involved in these two cases are from 2017 to 2020. The order refusing claim for exemption for the period 2017 is subject matter of W.P.(L) No. 4287 of 2021 and the order rejecting claim for exemption for the period 2018, 2019 and 2020 is subject matter of W.P.(L) No. 3900 of 2021. He submits that the orders refusing exemption are primarily related to the terms and conditions of employment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that for the period 2016, the exemption was granted. The order granting 2026:JHHC:21943 4 exemption is at page no. 56 of the rejoinder filed by the petitioner and marked as Annexure-R/3. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that the exemption has also been granted to the petitioner for the period of 2025 and thereafter, for a block of three years for the period from 2026 to 2028. He submits that as on date, the petitioner is availing the benefit of exemption. 7. The learned counsel submits that once exemption was granted for the period 2016, it is not clear as to how the exemption could be rejected for the periods 2017 to 2020 by referring to the same terms and conditions to which the various employees of the petitioner are subjected. He has further referred to the order of this Court in W.P.(L) No. 4649 of 2022 and analogous case dated 06.07.2026 and has, in particular, referred to paragraph 12 onwards of the said order. He submits that considering such inconsistencies which remained unexplained, the authority has been directed to examine the case of exemption of the petitioner by granting opportunity of hearing to the parties. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that similar order as that of W.P.(L) No. 4649 of 2022 and analogous case may be passed in the present cases also. 9. 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. 10. 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. 2026:JHHC:21943 5 11. Learned counsels for the State is 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. He has also perused the aforesaid orders which have been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners whereby exemption has been extended to the petitioner, though for different periods. 12. The learned counsel 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 counsel has 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. 13. 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 Employees' State Insurance Act, 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. 14. In view of the various orders whereby exemption has been extended, inter alia, after considering some of the heads of service conditions regarding medical benefits and refusal to extend the benefits of exemption for the periods 2017 to 2020 involved in these cases under the same heads of service conditions regarding medical benefits (except one), the impugned orders in these two writ petitions 2026:JHHC:21943 6 being inconsistent with other 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. 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.434 dated 30.03.2021 [Annexure-2 to W.P.(L) No. 3900 of 2021 (period – 2018 to 2020)] and order contained in Memo No.354 dated 12.03.2021 [Annexure-2 to W.P.(L) No. 4287 of 2021 (period- 2017)] are set-aside. 16. Accordingly, the petitioner and the concerned officers of the ESIC are directed to appear before the respondent no. 2 on 03rd August, 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 2017 to 2020 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 03rd August, 2026 itself. 19. At this, learned 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. 2026:JHHC:21943 7 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 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. 22. These writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 23. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order: 23.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:29.07.2026