{"id":143973,"date":"2009-05-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009"},"modified":"2018-08-30T14:03:35","modified_gmt":"2018-08-30T08:33:35","slug":"ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Anil Badyakar &amp; Ors on 15 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Anil Badyakar &amp; Ors on 15 May, 2009<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H Dattu<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, H.L. Dattu<\/div>\n<pre>                                                               REPORTABLE\n\n                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                   CIVIL APPEAL NO.3597 OF 2009\n                (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 18396 of 2007)\n\n\nM\/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd.                             ..........Appellant\n\n                                   Versus\n\n\nAnil Badyakar &amp; Ors.                                    .......Respondents\n\n\n                                  ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>H.L. Dattu,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>2)    Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of<\/p>\n<p>      High Court of Calcutta rejecting the appeals filed by the appellant and<\/p>\n<p>      thereby confirming the order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ<\/p>\n<p>      Petition No. 16515 of 1994 dated 14.8.2003.<\/p>\n<p>3)    The issue that would arise for our consideration is, whether or not in<\/p>\n<p>      the facts and circumstances of the case, the appointment made in<\/p>\n<p>      respect of respondent, who is the son-in-law of the deceased after 12<\/p>\n<p>      years, would negates the very object of compassionate appointment.<\/p>\n<p>4)    The facts in brief are :-\n<\/p>\n<p>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                         1<\/span><br \/>\n    One Kalo Dome, the father-in-law of the petitioner, while he was<\/p>\n<p>in service of Samla Colliery, ECL, under coal India Limited, died on<\/p>\n<p>31st December, 1981. After the death of said Kalo Dome, his wife<\/p>\n<p>submitted an application for employment on compassionate grounds.<\/p>\n<p>Subsequently, on March 7, 1983, the elder daughter of Kalo Dome<\/p>\n<p>also made an application for compassionate appointment. Ultimately,<\/p>\n<p>the dispute among the heirs was settled and all the heirs of Kalo Dome<\/p>\n<p>submitted &#8220;No Objection&#8221; in favour of the respondent               for<\/p>\n<p>employment on compassionate grounds. It was not out of place to<\/p>\n<p>mention that the respondent is the husband of the second daughter of<\/p>\n<p>Kalo Dome.     After the submission of such &#8220;No Objection&#8221;, the<\/p>\n<p>personal manager of the Company started processing the file for<\/p>\n<p>employment on compassionate grounds and the respondent complied<\/p>\n<p>with such requirements.        The matter was referred to the<\/p>\n<p>Superintendent of Police, Burdwan, for verification, and after<\/p>\n<p>compliance of all the formalities a letter of appointment on<\/p>\n<p>compassionate grounds was issued in favour of the petitioner on 10th<\/p>\n<p>May, 1993, by Personal Manager of the Company. Pursuant to such<\/p>\n<p>appointment letter, the respondent joined service, but after four<\/p>\n<p>months, the Director (P) vide his order dated 23rd September, 1993<\/p>\n<p>cancelled the provisional letter of appointment issued, on the ground<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                  2<\/span><br \/>\n     that such appointment was a belated one having been given after a<\/p>\n<p>     lapse of 12 years from the date of death of Kalo Dome.<\/p>\n<p>5)   Being dissatisfied with the order, the respondent had filed writ<\/p>\n<p>     petition before the High Court. The learned Single Judge has allowed<\/p>\n<p>     the writ petition and has directed the appellants to allow the<\/p>\n<p>     respondent to join service pursuant to provisional order of<\/p>\n<p>     appointment. The appeal filed by the appellants is rejected by the<\/p>\n<p>     Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n<p>6)   So far as the question of nature and object of appointment on<\/p>\n<p>     compassionate ground, it is relevant to take note of what is stated by<\/p>\n<p>     this court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana,<\/p>\n<p>     (1994) 4 SCC 138 : &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>           &#8220;The compassionate employment cannot be granted after<br \/>\n           a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in<br \/>\n           the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a<br \/>\n           vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.<\/p>\n<p>           The object being to enable the family to get over the<br \/>\n           financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of<br \/>\n           the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment<br \/>\n           cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time<br \/>\n           and after the crisis is over.&#8221; (Para 6)<\/p>\n<p>7)   In the case of Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301, it<\/p>\n<p>     was observed that :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>           &#8220;The very object of appointment of a dependent of the<br \/>\n           deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve<br \/>\n           unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                         3<\/span><br \/>\n             family by sudden demise of the earning member of the<br \/>\n             family.&#8221; (Para 3)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>8)    In MMTC Ltd. vs. Pramoda Dei, (1997) 11 SCC 390, it is observed<\/p>\n<p>      by the court :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>             &#8220;As pointed out by this Court, the object of<br \/>\n             compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious<br \/>\n             family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden<br \/>\n             financial crisis and not to provide employment and that<br \/>\n             mere death of an employee does not entitle his family to<br \/>\n             compassionate appointment.&#8221; (Para 4)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>9)    In the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/858616\/\">S. Mohan vs. Government of T.N.,<\/a> (1998) 9 SCC 485,<\/p>\n<p>      the court stated that :-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>             &#8220;The object being to enable the family to get over the<br \/>\n             financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of<br \/>\n             the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment<br \/>\n             cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time<br \/>\n             and after the crisis is over.&#8221; (Para 4)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>10)   This court has observed in <a href=\"\/doc\/327850\/\">Director of Education (Secondary) vs.<\/p>\n<p>      Pushpendra Kumar,<\/a> (1998) 5 SCC 192 :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>             &#8220;The object underlying a provision for grant of<br \/>\n             compassionate employment is to enable the family of the<br \/>\n             deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis<br \/>\n             resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left<br \/>\n             the family in penury and without any means of<br \/>\n             livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and<br \/>\n             having regard to the fact that unless some source of<br \/>\n             livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to<br \/>\n             make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving<br \/>\n             gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the<br \/>\n             deceased who may be eligible for such appointment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            Such a provision makes a departure from the general<br \/>\n            provisions providing for appointment on the post by<br \/>\n            following a particular procedure. Since such a provision<br \/>\n            enables appointment being made without following the<br \/>\n            said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the<br \/>\n            general provisions. An exception cannot subsume the<br \/>\n            main provision to which it is an exception and thereby<br \/>\n            nullify the main provision by taking away completely the<br \/>\n            right conferred by the main provision. Care has,<br \/>\n            therefore, to be taken that a provision for grant of<br \/>\n            compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an<br \/>\n            exception to the general provisions, does not unduly<br \/>\n            interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible<br \/>\n            for appointment to seek employment against the post<br \/>\n            which would have been available to them, but for the<br \/>\n            provision enabling appointment being made on<br \/>\n            compassionate grounds of the dependant of a deceased<br \/>\n            employee. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana<br \/>\n            this Court has taken note of the object underlying the<br \/>\n            rules providing for appointment on compassionate<br \/>\n            grounds and has held that the Government or the public<br \/>\n            authority concerned has to examine the financial<br \/>\n            condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if it<br \/>\n            is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the<br \/>\n            family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to<br \/>\n            be offered to the eligible member of the family.&#8221; (Para 8)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>11)   In the case of Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 7 SCC 192, the<\/p>\n<p>      court has stated that :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;This Court has held in a number of cases that<br \/>\n            compassionate appointment is intended to enable the<br \/>\n            family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden<br \/>\n            crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner who had<br \/>\n            left the family in penury and without any means of<br \/>\n            livelihood.&#8221; (Para 3)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>12)   In the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/410404\/\">Punjab National Bank vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja,<\/a><\/p>\n<p>      (2004) 7 SCC 265, it was observed by the court that :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>              &#8220;It is to be seen that the appointment on compassionate<br \/>\n              ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an<br \/>\n              exception to the requirement regarding appointments<br \/>\n              being made on open invitation of application on merits.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>              Basic intention is that on the death of the employee<br \/>\n              concerned his family is not deprived of the means of<br \/>\n              livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over<br \/>\n              sudden financial crisis.&#8221; (Para 4)<\/p>\n<p>13)   In so far as delay in approaching the authorities for such appointment<\/p>\n<p>      is considered by this court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/43443\/\">Union of India vs. Bhagwan<\/p>\n<p>      Singh,<\/a> (1995) 6 SCC 436, it was held as follows :<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;It is evident, that the facts in this case point out, that the<br \/>\n            plea for compassionate employment is not to enable the<br \/>\n            family to tide over the sudden crisis or distress which<br \/>\n            resulted as early as September 1972. At the time Ram<br \/>\n            Singh died on 12-9-1972 there were two major sons and<br \/>\n            the mother of the children who were apparently capable<br \/>\n            of meeting the needs in the family and so they did not<br \/>\n            apply for any job on compassionate grounds. For nearly<br \/>\n            20 years, the family has pulled on, apparently without<br \/>\n            any difficulty. In this background, we are of the view that<br \/>\n            the Central Administrative Tribunal acted illegally and<br \/>\n            wholly without jurisdiction in directing the Authorities to<br \/>\n            consider the case of the respondent for appointment on<br \/>\n            compassionate grounds and to provide him with an<br \/>\n            appointment, if he is found suitable.&#8221; (Para 8)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>14)   In the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1235841\/\">Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Naresh Tanwar,<\/a><\/p>\n<p>      (1996) 8 SCC 23, it was stated that :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;It has been indicated in the decision of Umesh Kumar<br \/>\n            Nagpal that compassionate appointment cannot be<br \/>\n            granted after a long lapse of reasonable period and the<br \/>\n            very purpose of compassionate appointment, as an<br \/>\n            exception to the general rule of open recruitment, is<br \/>\n            intended to meet the immediate financial problem being<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                              6<\/span><br \/>\n            suffered by the members of the family of the deceased<br \/>\n            employee. In the other decision of this Court in Jagdish<br \/>\n            Prasad case, it has been also indicated that the very object<br \/>\n            of appointment of dependent of deceased employee who<br \/>\n            died in harness is to relieve immediate hardship and<br \/>\n            distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the<br \/>\n            earning member of the family and such consideration<br \/>\n            cannot be kept binding for years.&#8221; (Para 9)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>15)   In the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1572559\/\">State of U.P. vs. Paras Nath,<\/a> (1998) 2 SCC 412, the<\/p>\n<p>      court has held that :-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;The purpose of providing employment to a dependant of<br \/>\n            a government servant dying in harness in preference to<br \/>\n            anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the<br \/>\n            family of the employee on account of his unexpected<br \/>\n            death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the<br \/>\n            family, such appointments are permissible on<br \/>\n            compassionate grounds provided there are Rules<br \/>\n            providing for such appointment. The purpose is to<br \/>\n            provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a<br \/>\n            deceased government servant. None of these<br \/>\n            considerations can operate when the application is made<br \/>\n            after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the<br \/>\n            present case.&#8221; (Para 5)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>16)   In the case of Haryana SEB vs. Krishna Devi, (2002) 10 SCC 246,<\/p>\n<p>      the court has observed that :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;As the application for employment of her son on<br \/>\n            compassionate ground was made by the respondent after<br \/>\n            eight years of death of her husband, we are of the opinion<br \/>\n            that it was not to meet the immediate financial need of<br \/>\n            the family. The High Court did not consider the position<br \/>\n            of law and allowed the writ petition relying on an earlier<br \/>\n            decision of the High Court.&#8221; (Para 7)<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                             7<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>17)   In the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/805634\/\">National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. vs. Nanak Chand,<\/a><\/p>\n<p>      (2004) 12 SCC 487, the court has stated that :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;It is to be seen that the appointment on compassionate<br \/>\n            ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an<br \/>\n            exception to the requirement regarding appointments<br \/>\n            being made on open invitation of application on merits.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>            Basic intention is that on the death of the employee<br \/>\n            concerned his family is not deprived of the means of<br \/>\n            livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over<br \/>\n            sudden financial crises.&#8221; (Para 5)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>18)   In the case of State of J&amp;<a href=\"\/doc\/1830553\/\">K vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir,<\/a> (2006) 5 SCC 766,<\/p>\n<p>      the court has held that :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;Normally, an employment in the Government or other<br \/>\n            public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates<br \/>\n            who can come forward to apply and compete with each<br \/>\n            other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the<br \/>\n            Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an<br \/>\n            appointment should be made to public office. This<br \/>\n            general rule should not be departed from except where<br \/>\n            compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the<br \/>\n            sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering<br \/>\n            because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of<br \/>\n            the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and<br \/>\n            substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say<br \/>\n            &#8220;goodbye&#8221; to the normal rule of appointment and to show<br \/>\n            favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others<br \/>\n            ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>            (Para 11)<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                           8<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>19)   The principles indicated above would give a clear indication that the<\/p>\n<p>      compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be<\/p>\n<p>      exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment<\/p>\n<p>      cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis<\/p>\n<p>      is over. In the instant case the employee died in harness in the year<\/p>\n<p>      1981 and after a long squabble by the dependents of the deceased,<\/p>\n<p>      they arrived at a settlement that the son-in-law of the second daughter<\/p>\n<p>      who is unemployed may request for appointment on compassionate<\/p>\n<p>      grounds. The request so made was accepted by the Personal Manager<\/p>\n<p>      of the Company subject to the approval of the Director of the<\/p>\n<p>      Company. The Director (P) , who is the competent authority for post<\/p>\n<p>      facto approval, keeping in view the object and purpose of providing<\/p>\n<p>      compassionate appointment has cancelled the provisional appointment<\/p>\n<p>      on the ground that nearly after 12 years from the date of death of the<\/p>\n<p>      employee such an appointment could not have been offered to the so<\/p>\n<p>      called dependent of the deceased employee. In our considered view,<\/p>\n<p>      the decision of the employer was in consonance with Umesh Kumar<\/p>\n<p>      Nagpal&#8217;s case and the same should not have been interfered with by<\/p>\n<p>      the High Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>20)   Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the orders passed by<\/p>\n<p>      the High Court. There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                          9<\/span><br \/>\n                &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;J.\n<\/p>\n<p>                [TARUN CHATTERJEE]<\/p>\n<p>                &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;J.<br \/>\n                [ H.L. DATTU ]<br \/>\nNew Delhi,<br \/>\nMay 15, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                     10<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India M\/S Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Anil Badyakar &amp; Ors on 15 May, 2009 Author: H Dattu Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, H.L. Dattu REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3597 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 18396 of 2007) M\/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.Appellant Versus Anil [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-143973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Anil Badyakar &amp; Ors on 15 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Anil Badyakar &amp; Ors on 15 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-30T08:33:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Anil Badyakar &amp; Ors on 15 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-30T08:33:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2234,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Anil Badyakar &amp; Ors on 15 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-30T08:33:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Anil Badyakar &amp; Ors on 15 May, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Anil Badyakar &amp; Ors on 15 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Anil Badyakar &amp; Ors on 15 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-30T08:33:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Anil Badyakar &amp; Ors on 15 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-30T08:33:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009"},"wordCount":2234,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009","name":"M\/S Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Anil Badyakar &amp; Ors on 15 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-30T08:33:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-anil-badyakar-ors-on-15-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Anil Badyakar &amp; Ors on 15 May, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143973","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=143973"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143973\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=143973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=143973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=143973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}