Chattisgarh High Court
Coal India Limited vs Hitesh Kumar Sahu on 31 July, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1/8
2025:CGHC:37431-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 542 of 2025
1 - Coal India Limited Through Its Chairman, Address- Coal Bhawan, Action
Area-1a, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata- 700156.
2 - General Manager (Pers) Coal India Limited Address- Coal Bhawan, Action
Area- 1a, New Town Rajarahat, Kolkata- 700156
3 - General Manager (E E) South Eastern Coalfields Limited. Address- Seepat
Road, Bilaspur - 495006 (Chhattisgarh)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Hitesh Kumar Sahu S/o Haridas Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o C-26
Officer Colony S.E.C.L. Hasdeo Area S-J K D Manendragarh Pin 497448,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate along
with Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Chopda, Advocate (through
virtual mode)
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
31/07/2025
1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellants against the
VEDPRAKASH
impugned order dated 07.04.2025, passed by learned Single Judge, in
DEWANGAN
WPS No. 1224 of 2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ
petitioner is allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to
consider for grant him promotion under the Persons with Disabilities (in
short 'PwD') quota, if he found suitable, and he is also held entitled for
notional seniority.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as
Management Trainee (OBC/PH) quota in E-2 grade in Coal India
Limited on 03.10.2015. After successful completion of training period
and qualifying the written test, he was placed in E-3 grade designated
as Assistant Manager vide order dated 15.05.2017. The respondent
authorities vide order dated 11.05.2021 and 03.09.2021, promoted their
Assistant Managers of E-3 grade to the post of Deputy Managers in E-4
grade following the reservation policy of 15% for SC category and 7.5%
for ST category employees. However, the guideline of the Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension with respect to 3%
reservation in promotion of PwD employees have not been followed and
the petitioner has not been considered for promotion. They have
completely ignored the employee of PwD category for promotion. The
petitioner has completed 03 years of his service in E-3 category on
28.10.2021 and eligible for promotion, but he has deprived for the same
and now he become junior to his batch-mates, but also to his juniors,
which is violative of the guidelines of Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and pension for promotion.
3. After hearing the parties, on 07.04.2025, the learned Single Judge
allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner and directed the
respondent authorities/writ appellants to consider the case of the
petitioner for promotion under PwD quota ignoring the office
memorandum dated 17.05.2022, if he found suitable and the petitioner
is also held entitled for benefit of notional seniority, which is under
challenge in the present writ appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the writ appellants would vehemently submit that,
the writ petition itself was not maintainable for want of impleading
necessary parties, who are the promoted executives. Granting relief to
the petitioner will open flood gate of litigation from similarly situated
employees. The learned Single Judge has erroneously held that office
memorandum dated 17.05.2022 cannot be applied retrospectively
without taking into consideration the first proviso to Section 34(1) of
Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (in short 'RPwD Act, 2016'),
which stipulates that reservation in promotion shall be in accordance
with such instructions issued by the appropriate government from time
to time. He would also submit that the notification dated 04.01.2021 was
issued under Section 33 of the RPwD Act, 2016, which is restricted only
to identification of posts suitable to be filled by PwD candidates,
whereas the office memorandum dated 17.05.2022 was issued under
Section 34 of RPwD Act, 2016, which specifically relates to reservation
in promotion. He would also submit that the Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment, Union of India while exercising its powers under
Section 33 of the RPwD Act, 2016 issued a gazette notification on
04.01.2021 identifying the posts in group A, B, C and D, which are
suitable to be held by PwD. The 2021 notification is to be read along
with first proviso to Section 34(1) of RPwD Act, 2016 and office
memorandum dated 17.05.2022. Section 34 of the Act of 2016
stipulates that the reservation in promotion to PwD employees can be
extended only up till the employees of group 'A', and therefore, the
petitioner not comes under the zone of consideration for promotion
under the PwD quota, yet his writ petition is allowed. He prayed for
setting aside the impugned order and for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would supported the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that,
the order passed by the learned Single Judge is justified and has
passed after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case
and law applicable to it, therefore, the writ appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials annexed with the writ appeal as well as the writ petition.
7. The grievance of the writ appellants is that the notification dated
04.01.2021 was issued under Section 33 of RPwD Act, 2016, whereas
the office memorandum dated 17.05.2022 issued under Section 34 of
RPwD Act, 2016, and the notification restricted only to the exercise of
identification of posts suitable to be filed by PwD candidates. Although,
the learned Single Judge has quoted the provisions of Sections 33 and
34 of RPwD Act, 2016 in its order dated 07.04.2025, but for
consideration of the writ appeal, it is necessary to quote here the said
provisions, which reads as under:-
"33. Identification of posts for reservation.- The
appropriate Government shall-
(i) identify posts in the establishments which can be
held by respective category of persons with
benchmark disabilities in respect of the vacancies
reserved in accordance with the provisions of section
34;
(ii) constitute an expert committee with representation
of persons with benchmark disabilities for identification
of such posts; and
(iii) undertake periodic review of the identified posts at
an interval not exceeding three years.
34. Reservation.- (1) Every appropriate Government shall
appoint in every Government establishment, not less than
four per cent. of the total number of vacancies in the cadre
strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with
persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent.
each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark
disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent.
for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d)
and (e), namely:-
(a) blindness and low vision;
(b) deaf and hard of hearing;
(c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy,
leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and
muscular dystrophy;
(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning
disability and mental illness;
(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under
clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts
identified for each disabilities:
Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in
accordance with such instructions as are issued by the
appropriate Government from time to time:
Provided further that the appropriate Government, in
consultation with the Chief Commissioner or the State
Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to
the type of work carried out in any Government
establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions,
if any, as may be specified in such notifications exempt any
Government establishment from the provisions of this
section.
(2) Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be
filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with
benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons,
such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding
recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year
also suitable person with benchmark disability is not
available, it may first be filled by interchange among the five
categories and only when there is no person with disability
available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up
the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a
person with disability:
Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment
is such that a given category of person cannot be employed,
the vacancies may be interchanged among the five
categories with the prior approval of the appropriate
Government.
(3) The appropriate Government may, by notification,
provide for such relaxation of upper age limit for
employment of persons with benchmark disability, as it
thinks fit"
8. While considering the provisions of Sections 33 and 34 of the RPwD
Act, 2016, the learned Single Judge has observed in its order that
according to the RPwD Act, 2016, the reservation in promotion shall be
in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate
government from time to time in consultation with the Chief
Commissioner or State Commissioner, as the case may be, may having
regard to the type of work carried out in any government establishment,
by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified
in such notifications exempt any government establishment from the
provisions of this Section. In the notification dated 04.01.2021, the posts
have been identified and there has been no exemption for a particular
group by a separate notification. Though the office memorandum dated
17.05.2022 provides no reservation for PwD candidates in E-4 grade,
but the office memorandum has been issued on 17.05.2022, whereas
the promotions were made in the year 2021, and thus, the office
memorandum dated 17.05.2022 cannot be given retrospective effect.
9. While considering the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has also
considered the judgment of "Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural
Development Bank Limited v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and
others" 2022 (4) SCC 363 and "Railway Board v. C.R.
Rangadhamaiah" 1997 (6) SCC 623, and has held that such
notification having retrospective operation, which has the effect of taking
away the benefit of the employee, is arbitrary, discriminatory and
violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge has also discussed that
the office memorandum dated 17.05.2022 would have adverse effect on
the claim of the petitioner, as the same supersedes the notification
dated 04.01.2021, and on the date when the promotions took place,
there was no such exemption granted for a particular group by a
separate notification.
10. Upon perusing the impugned order, we noticed that the same has been
rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable
reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted
unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while
allowing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the
facts of the case and the law applicable to it.
11. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the finding recorded by
learned Single Judge and the appeal being devoid of merits, liable to be
and hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved
