Jharkhand High Court
Arun Kumar Tiwari vs Coal India Limited on 17 September, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:28622
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1062 of 2020
---------
Arun Kumar Tiwari, aged about 64 years, son of Late Ram Nandan Tiwari, Resident of Sai Ashray Apartment, Block-A, Flat No.105, Kathal More Road, P.O. - Pundag, P.S. - Pundag, District
- Ranchi, PIN - 834004.
....Petitioner Versus
1. Coal India Limited, Kolkata through its Chairman, having its office at Coal Bhawan, P.O. New Town, Rajarhat, P.S. Rajarhat, District Bengal). Kolkata (West Bengal).
2. The Director (P & IR), Coal Indian Limited, Kolkata through its Chairman, having its office at Coal Bhawan, P.Ο. New Town, Rajarhat, P.S. Rajarhat, District - Kolkata (West Bengal).
3. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Sambalpur (Orissa), having its office at Jagruti Bihar, P.O. - Jagruti Bihar, P.S. - Burla, District - Sambalpur, Odisha - 768020.
4. The Director (P), Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Sambalpur (Orissa), having its office at Jagruti Bihar, P.O. Jagruti bihar, P.S. Burla, District Sambalpur, Odisha - 768020
5. The General Manager (P)/EE, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Sambalpur (Orissa), having its office at Jagruti Bihar, P.O.- Jagruti Bihar, P.S. Burla, District-Sambalpur, Odisha- 768020.
6. The Sr. Manager (P)/EE, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Sambalpur (Orissa), having its office at Jagruti Bihar, P.O. Jagruti bihar, P.S. Burla, District-Sambalpur, Odisha-768020.
....Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Uday Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Manoj Kr. Sinha, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Adv Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv
---------
17/17.09.2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: -
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 25.04.2018 (Annexure-2) issued by the Respondent No. 6, whereby and whereunder the petitioner's legitimate dues of payment of Performance Related Pay (in short 'PRP') has been denied on a ground, which was not only contrary to 1 2025:JHHC:28622 the Company's Service Rule but also contrary to the Guidelines of the Government of India, the law settled in the field of award of punishment in the departmental action and even the scheme of PRP itself;
AND
(ii) Further prays for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to pay the petitioner the PRP for the Financial Year 2014-15 forthwith along with interest.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that, the Petitioner was posted as Director (Technical) at Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL), a subsidiary of M/s. C.I.L., from 01.10.2008 until retirement on 31.08.2016. Under the PRP Scheme issued by CIL on 08.03.2016, the Petitioner was entitled to Performance Related Pay (PRP) for the year 2014-
15. The "R Factor" method for billing PRP for 2014-15 was communicated by CIL on 19.07.2017.
However, on 25.04.2018, the Petitioner was denied PRP for 2014-15 by the 6th Respondent citing a policy that PRP is not payable to executives who have received punishment. The denial was based on a CIL order dated 10.04.1995, which states that a "Recordable Warning" is considered as punishment equivalent to censure.
3. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 25.4.2018 (Annexure 2), denying the relief of PRP for the year 2014-2015 to the petitioner, is based on only two grounds, which are as follows:
(i) That, as per the policy decision, PRP should not be paid to any executive who has been awarded punishment;
(ii) That, as per the earlier office memorandum (hereinafter as OM) under reference No. CIL; C5A(vi): 052:657 dated 10.4.1995, as circulated, a recordable warning is also a punishment and is equivalent to censure.
4. He further submits that as regards Ground No. 1(i) above, it is not in dispute.
22025:JHHC:28622 As regards Ground No. 1(ii) above, it has been submitted that the contents of the OM dated 10.4.1995 (Annexure-4), as referred to while passing the impugned order, have been misread and misconstrued. It is apparent that the memo dated 10.4.1995 was issued in the context of past cases where, in the subsidiary companies of M/s CIL, the punishment of warning--both recordable and non- recordable--as well as caution, was issued for misconduct to executives after the conclusion of departmental enquiry. The OM dated 10.4.1995 suggested how to regularize and settle past cases where warnings were issued to improve efficiencies and maintain discipline, specifically where recordable warnings were imposed after conducting enquiry and following the disciplinary procedure. In the concluding paragraph, the OM suggested that the disciplinary authority should not issue either 'recordable' or 'non-recordable' warnings or cautions in the future, and that such cases would not be entertained by CIL for consideration in promotion matters.
5. He further submits that the Respondents are precluded from making out any new case other than what has been stated in the impugned order dated 25.4.2018 denying the relief of PRP to the petitioner. He further submits that even if the word 'warning' is considered to be on equal footing with the word 'censure' in terms of dictionary meaning, as contended by the Respondents, it remains a fact that the word 'censure' (and similarly 'warning') is a prescribed punishment imposed only after the conclusion of departmental enquiry following the prescribed departmental procedure.
Though, the Petitioner, by letter dated 12.11.2014 (Annexure-11), was issued a "recordable warning to be careful 3 2025:JHHC:28622 in future," was admittedly issued without following the departmental procedure or concluding any enquiry. As a matter of fact, this warning was issued with a view to improve efficiency and maintain discipline. It is an administrative warning and in support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.1, wherein at para 48 and 50, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"48. The appellant was given a show-cause notice dated 24-10- 2010 proposing compulsory retirement. The ground on which the action was proposed was attached to the show-cause notice. On perusal thereof it reveals that the material sought to be put up against the appellant was as under:
1. Adverse remarks for the period 1-4-2001 to 2-10-2001.
2. Award of punishment of "warning" vide SP/AMB/OB/218/08 for showing negligence in investigation in case FIR No. 121 dated 9-7-2008 under Sections 279/304- A IPC, PS Narayan.
50. Since, we have allowed CA No. 396 of 2008, the effect thereof is that adverse remarks for the period in question no longer remain in the service record of the appellant and for this period his rating now is "good" to which he was upgraded vide order dated 2-5-2003. Insofar as the award of "warning" is concerned, the learned counsel for the State could not dispute that "warning"
is not a punishment prescribed under the Rules. It was not given to him after holding any inquiry. Therefore, such a warning recorded administratively in a service record cannot be the sole basis of compulsory retirement."
6. Learned counsel for the Respondents oppose the contention of the petitioner and draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-e to the counter-affidavit and submits that vide letter dated 12.11.2014 which is the O.M.; there is a clear indication that where no disciplinary action has been initiated and if the warning either recordable or non- recordable has been issued for toning up efficiency and maintaining discipline under the aforesaid provision of 1 [(2013) 16 SCC 293] 4 2025:JHHC:28622 common coal cadre, the warning if recoverable may be treated as adverse entry and the same will be treated as minor penalty of censor; as such learned counsel contended that the stand of the petitioner that there was no proceeding initiated prior to issuance of this letter will not amount to censor and only censor is a minor punishment, is misconceived.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavit, it appears that the Petitioner has retired from service of NCL, CIL on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.08.2016. He worked as Director Technical, NCL from 01.10.2008 which was extended beyond 13.09.2013 till 31.08.2016 vide letter dated 02.01.2015 of GM(P) (CIL).
On 12.11.2014, the Petitioner was issued a letter of "Recordable Warning" on 12.11.2014 by the under-Secretary Government of India, Ministry of Coal and due to that reason he has not been paid PRP for the year 2014-15 on the ground that he has been issued a 'Recordable Warning' in the year 2014-15 which is equivalent to censor as per O.M. dated 10.04.1995 of D (P&IR) (CIL).
6. As a matter of fact, vide letter dated 03.04.2018 it has been communicated that PRP not be paid to the executives for the respective financial years in which 'Recordable Warning' was issued.
It is true that subsequently, vide letter dated 17.07.2018, it was also communicated that FDs have decided that in the cases where charge-sheet is not issued under the provision of CDA rules then "Recordable Warning" should not be treated as punishment and as such same shall not affect the admissibility of payment of PRP. However, the FDs have 5 2025:JHHC:28622 also decided to implement the aforesaid decision prospectively in respect of all the payment of PRP in future i.e. for the year 2016-2017 onwards and no passed case should be reopened on this account; as such this action of the Respondents is a clear clarification issued earlier.
6. Further, there is an averment in the counter-affidavit at page 6 which has been extracted as under: -
"(viii) As per Point No.4 of methodology for payment of PRP for the year 2009-10 to 2014-15 as circulated vide O.M. No. CIL/C54(PCO/1180 dated 08.03.2016 of Director (P&IR), CIL, "PRP benefit would not be admissible for the following categories of Executives: -
c) Executives terminated from service, absconding/unauthorized absenting and awarded punishment during the Financial Year."
Further, from service conditions, it appears that minor penalty involves censor, withholding increment with or without cumulative, withholding promotion and recovery from pay of the whole of part or any pecuniary loss which the company suffered by negligence or breach of act or trust.
7. The Petitioner has strenuously contended that since the adverse remark which was issued vide impugned letter does not mention "Recordable Warning" as punishment, therefore, non-payment of PRP is not sustainable in the eye of law.
This argument is not accepted by this Court for the reasons that the very word "censor" means to reprimand; to express official disapproval, condemnation etc. as per Black law dictionary and the content of the impugned letter dated 12.11.2024 indicates a reprimand given to the Petitioner so this contention is otherwise also not sustainable in view of 6 2025:JHHC:28622 the order referred to hereinabove that the petitioner was issued the letter for "Recordable Warning" the grant of PRP benefit cannot be extended to him for the relevant year 2014-
15.
8. As stated hereinabove, though the letter dated 17.07.2018 whereby it was communicated that FDs have decided that in the cases where charge-sheet is not issued under the provision of CDA Rules then "Recordable Warning"
should not be treated as punishment; but vide same letter it was also clarified that the FDs have also decided to implement the aforesaid decision prospectively in respect of all the payment of PRP in future i.e. for the year 2016-2017 onwards and no passed cases should be reopened on this account; as such this action of the Respondents is a clear clarification issued. Thus, the said letter cannot be deemed to act retrospectively.
Moreover, the law in this regard is well settled that any notification/provisions/rules etc., unless there is a specific assertion with regard to retrospectivity; has to act prospectively. The judgment relied upon by the Petitioner is not applicable in this peculiar fact of the case in view of the discussion made hereinabove.
9. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.As., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) September 17, 2025 Amardeep/-7