{"id":216113,"date":"2010-01-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010"},"modified":"2018-05-21T06:16:27","modified_gmt":"2018-05-21T00:46:27","slug":"rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Rambali Mahto vs Central Coalfields Ltd & Ors on 7 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Rambali Mahto vs Central Coalfields Ltd & Ors on 7 January, 2010<\/div>\n
                  Writ Petition (S) No. 4569 of 2008\n\n       In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution\n       of India.\n                                ---------\n<\/pre>\n
       Rambali Mahto                               ...... Petitioner\n                                Versus\n<\/pre>\n
       1. Central Coal Fields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
\n           Managing Director, Ranchi\n<\/p>\n
       2. General Manager, (P & IR), Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi\n<\/p>\n
       3. Chief General Manager, Charhi Area, C.C.L., Hazaribagh\n<\/p>\n
       4. Personnel Manager, Kedla Open Cast Project, Ramgarh\n<\/p>\n
       5. Shri R.B.Tiwari, Deputy Chief Staff Officer(H)\/Charhi, CCL\n<\/p>\n
       6. Shri S.K.Singh, Personnel Manager, Charhi, C.C.L., Hazaribagh\n<\/p>\n
       7. Shri Sanjay Sinha, Senior Personnel, Kedla Open Cast Project,
\n           C.C.L.<\/p>\n
\n       8. Mukund Oraon\n       9. Sawna Oraon                              ...... Respondents\n                                ---------\n       For the Petitioner:      Mr. Deepak Roshan, Advocate\n       For the C.C.L.:          Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate\n                                ---------\n                 th\n       Dated 7 January'10\n\n                             PRESENT\n                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL\n\nD.N.PATEL,J.        The present petition has been preferred by an\n<\/pre>\n
       employee of the respondent-Central Coalfields Ltd., who was
\n       working as Class IV employee from 18th December, 1973 and who
\n       has retired on 22nd March, 2002, after putting the services of 29
\n       long years. Never any objection was raised by the respondents
\n       about this Class IV employee about his nature of work or for any
\n       reason, whatsoever. Thus, the petitioner has worked sincerely,
\n       diligently, honestly and to the satisfaction of the respondents,
\n       without any stigma attached to his service career. After his
\n       retirement, a so called complaint has been received from some
\n       complainant, who has never been examined by the Inquiring
\n       Officer, and after retirement of the petitioner-employee, a report
\n       has been submitted by the Inquiring Officer on 10th July, 2007
\n       (Annexure 8 to the memo of petition) that the petitioner was really
\n       never appointed as Class IV employee and there is impersonation
\n       by the petitioner in the year, 1973 and thereafter. Thus, all the
\n       retirement benefits have been withheld by the respondents, only on
\n       this ground and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred
\n       by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
       2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted
\n       that the petitioner has always remained obedient Class IV
\n       employee and he has worked to the satisfaction of the respondents.
\n       Never any show cause notice has been issued nor any objection
\n                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
has been raised about the petitioner nor for his working style.
\nMoreover, in all service records, the name and photograph of the
\npetitioner have been attached in several documents, which are in
\nthe custody of the respondents, like:\n<\/p>\n
      (a) Service Register;<\/p>\n
      (b) Identity Card;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (c) Gratuity Nomination Form-F\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (d) Coal Mines Provident Fund Nomination Form-A\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.    Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
\npetitioner that these are the documents, which are in custody and
\nknowledge and possession of the respondent-Management. Some
\ndocuments have been further forwarded to the Provident Fund or
\nPension authorities. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for
\nthe petitioner that still there are documents with the respondents
\nof the petitioner, who has worked for 29 long years, but, they are
\nwithout photographs, like; Leave Report, Sick Report etc. It is also
\nsubmitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no
\nquestion of any impersonation, whatsoever. The petitioner is the
\nson of Karu Mahto and even his father was also serving in Kedla
\nMines (before nationalization). Time and again the petitioner has
\nstated that he has never visited his birth place and the petitioner
\nhad to remain with his father at difference places and, therefore,
\nmatching of the retirement time photograph or a photograph in the
\nservice records, in a particular village before some villagers is not a
\ncorrect evidence that the petitioner is not Rambali Mahto son of
\nKaru Mahto. There was enough time with the respondents, right
\nfrom 1973 to 2002 to verify all the facts, which are stated in the
\nservice records, but, never any objection has been raised by
\nanyone, much less by the respondent-Management and after his
\npeaceful retirement, on a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint,
\nunnecessarily the petitioner’s retirement benefits have been
\nwithheld.\n<\/p>\n
4.    It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
\nthat firstly the complainant has never been examined by the
\nInquiring Officer and secondly, two co-employees, namely, Govind
\nMunda and Shankar Par, have already stated that the petitioner
\nhas worked as a Class IV employee from 1978 onwards with the
\nrespondents and this aspect of the matter has not been properly
\nappreciated by the Inquiring Officer and the Inquiring Officer has
\nonly relied upon the statements, made by some persons of Village-
\nKhajawati (Bodhgaya) and of Village- Soso and that too, upon
\n                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
showing a photograph of the petitioner. Petitioner is not knowing
\nwhich photograph was shown to whom, upon whose statements,
\nmuch reliance has been placed by the Inquiring Officer nor the
\npetitioner was kept present at the said two villages. Even an
\nopportunity of cross-examining the said person\/persons of Village-
\nKhajawati (Bodhgaya) and of Village- Soso was never given to the
\npetitioner. Thus, what question was asked to whom and that too
\nby showing what photograph has not been brought at the
\ntouchstone of the cross-examination. Thus, the evidence upon
\nwhich inquiry report is based, is no evidence at all, whereas, as
\nstated hereinabove, two co-employees have given depositions in
\nfavour of the petitioner and in absence of examination of the
\ncomplainant, the report of the Inquiring Officer, which is dated
\n10th July, 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo of petition) is based upon
\nno evidence and is non-est, which has been concluded much after
\nthe retirement of the petitioner i.e. after March, 2002 onwards. It is
\nalso submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
\npetitioner is never willing to go within the campus of the
\nrespondents, as he has already retired and after retirement, no
\nquestion of further misuse of any fund, whatsoever, arises and, in
\nfact, the petitioner has worked sincerely, honestly, diligently and to
\nthe satisfaction of the respondents for 29 long years and, therefore,
\nby quashing and setting aside the order of the Inquiring
\nOfficer\/Committee dated 10th July, 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo
\nof petition), let the respondents be directed to make payment of the
\nlegally payable retirement benefits under different headings, like;
\nProvident Fund, Pension, Leave Encashment, Gratuity, and such
\nother legally payable benefits.\n<\/p>\n
5.    I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has
\nsubmitted that the petitioner is not the son of Karu Mahto and he
\nhas served for all 29 years by impersonating himself and this fact
\nhas been revealed after retirement of the present petitioner, upon a
\ncomplaint made by somebody and, thereafter, in pursuance of an
\norder, passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1085 of 2005 (disposed
\nof on 25th April, 2007), which is at Annexure 6 to the memo of
\npetition, an Inquiry Committee was constituted and the Inquiry
\nCommittee has arrived at a conclusion vide its report dated 10th
\nJuly, 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo of petition) that the petitioner
\nis not the son of Karu Mahto and, therefore, in pursuance of the
\norder, passed in the aforesaid writ petition at Annexure 6 to the
\nmemo of petition, the actions have been initiated by forfeiting all
\n                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
the retirement benefits, mainly on the ground of impersonation,
\nright from the very beginning and, therefore, this writ petition
\ndeserved to be dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n
6.    Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking
\nto the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that:\n<\/p>\n
      (i) The petitioner was employed as a Class IV employee with
\n      the respondents on 18th December, 1973 and he was
\n      working to the satisfaction of the respondents till he reached
\n      the age of superannuation i.e. on 22nd March, 2002. Thus,
\n      the petitioner has served for 29 long years and never any
\n      objection has been raised by the respondents about
\n      impersonation of the petitioner nor about the working style
\n      of the petitioner and never any dissatisfaction has been
\n      reflected by the respondents towards the services, rendered
\n      by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has worked with the
\n      respondents right from December, 1973 to March, 2002
\n      sincerely, honestly, diligently and to the satisfaction of the
\n      respondents and without having any stigma to his service
\n      records;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (ii)    After petitioner’s retirement, some undated complaint
\n      was received by the respondent-Management on 4th July,
\n      2002.    Thereafter,       unending     inquiry        was    started,   but,
\n      meanwhile        the    respondents         withheld    the    payment     of
\n      retirement benefits of the petitioner and, therefore, a writ
\n      petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 1085 of 2005 was instituted by
\n      the petitioner, which was disposed of by this Court vide
\n      order dated 25th April, 2007 (Annexure 6 to the memo of
\n      petition), wherein, it was ordered that a long drawn inquiry
\n      ought to be completed within a period of three months from
\n      the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if it was not so
\n      completed. The relevant part of the said order dated 25th
\n      April, 2007 in W.P.(S) No. 1085 of 2005 reads as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    “In the circumstances, the General Manager (P &
\n              IR), CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi (respondent no.3)
\n              is directed to see that the committee enquires into the
\n              matter and takes a decision, if not already taken,
\n              within         three       months      from      the      date     of
\n              receipt\/production of a copy of this order and
\n              communicate the same to the petitioner. If any
\n              decision has already been taken, the same be
\n              communicated to the petitioner immediately. If it is
\n                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
        found that petitioner is genuine claimant and he has
\n        not impersonated, it goes without saying that his
\n        claims should be processed and paid in accordance
\n        with law without any delay.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              With these observations and directions, this writ
\n        petition is disposed of.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(iii)   Thus, in view of the aforesaid observation, the petition
\nwas disposed of and a long drawn inquiry was bound to be
\ncompleted thereafter and a report was given by the Inquiring
\nCommittee on 10th July, 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo of
\npetition), wherein, it has been held that the present
\npetitioner was not the son of Karu Mahto and there was
\nimpersonation. Thus, after retirement of the petitioner from
\n22nd March, 2002, the inquiry was concluded on 10th July,
\n2007. Thus, after several years the report has been given at
\nAnnexure 8 to the memo of petition;\n<\/p>\n
(iv)    Now looking closely to the report of the Inquiring
\nOfficer, it appears that a photograph of the present petitioner
\nwas shown to some of the villagers of Village- Khajawati
\n(Bodhgaya) and of Village- Soso, where some villagers, on the
\nbasis of their observations, memory and reproduction, gave
\nevidence that the person in the photograph is not the son of
\nKaru Mahto and Karu Mahto was having only two sons and
\nthere is no third son like Rambali Mahto. Mainly on this
\nbasis, a report has been submitted after several years from
\nretirement of the petitioner. The petitioner was employed on
\n18th December, 1973 and the report of impersonation comes
\nin July, 2007.\n<\/p>\n
(v)     It also appears that:\n<\/p>\n
        (a) There is co-employee, who was examined, namely,
\nGovind Munda, who has given deposition in favour of the
\npetitioner that this very petitioner, who is Rambali Mahto
\nson of Karu Mahto, has worked as Class IV employee from
\n1978 onwards i.e. from the date of his knowledge;\n<\/p>\n
        (b) Likewise, deposition has been given by oneShankar
\nPar, who has also stated before the Inquiring Committee that
\nthe present petitioner, who is Rambali Mahto son of Karu
\nMahto, has served for several years with the respondents
\nand was co-employee with him;\n<\/p>\n
                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
       (c) The so-called complainant, who is alleged to have
\nfiled the complaint, after retirement of the petitioner, has
\nnever been examined;\n<\/p>\n
       (d)     It has been stated by the petitioner as per the
\ninquiry report that he has never visited these villagers from
\nwhere the statements have been recorded of some persons
\nupon whom much reliance has been placed by the
\nrespondents by showing a photograph of the petitioner;\n<\/p>\n
       (e) No opportunity of cross-examining those villagers of
\nVillage- Khajawati (Bodhgaya) as well as of Village- Soso has
\nbeen given to the petitioner. Thus, what photograph was
\nshown to those villagers, whose statements were recorded
\nand who are they, everything has been kept in dark and
\nsuch statements have not been allowed to be tested at the
\ntouchstone of the cross-examination, which is a most vital
\npart of the inquiry, especially when any inquiry is being
\nconducted after 29 long years’ services of the petitioner and
\nthat too after his retirement. The present photograph or the
\nphotograph of 1973 from service records of the petitioner
\nmay not be matched with the memory of those villagers. All
\nthese depend upon capacity of observation, memory and
\nreproduction of any witness, when he is giving statement.
\nThis aspect of the matter, which affects the very root of the
\ncase has been lost sight of and a Class IV employee has been
\nsaddled      with   a   stigma   that   from   1973   there   was
\nimpersonation, which has been found out in the month of
\nJuly, 2007 and that too with the aforesaid open ended
\ninquiry or by let loosing crucial aspects of the inquiry.\n<\/p>\n
(v)    It ought to be kept in mind by the respondent-
\nManagement that whenever Class IV employee has worked
\nsincerely, diligently, honestly and to their satisfaction and
\nthat too, for approximately three long decades, upon a
\nfrivolous complaint, which is absolutely undated and the
\ncomplainant is not ready to come forward to give evidence, in
\nsuch a situation it is always advisable to decide the case in
\nfavour of their honest, sincere and diligent employees, who
\nhave proved their metal, especially when they are Class IV
\nemployees.\n<\/p>\n
(vi)   In view of several documents like:\n<\/p>\n
       (a) Service Register;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (b) Identity Card;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
              (c) Gratuity Nomination Form-F\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (d) Coal Mines Provident Fund Nomination Form-A<\/p>\n
      which reveal photograph as well as name of the petitioner,
\n      there were enough opportunities with the respondents from
\n      1973 to 2002 to verify the data of the petitioner. The service
\n      book is being signed, every year by the high-ranking officer
\n      of the respondent-C.C.L.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (vii)   Looking to the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no
\n      impersonation. Petitioner is a son of Karu Mahto. He has
\n      served for 29 long years, as legally and validly appointed
\n      peon.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.    As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I
\nhereby hold that the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiring
\nCommittee dated 10th July, 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo of
\npetition) is non-est, as crucial evidence has not been appreciated
\nand considered whereas irrelevant evidence has been considered.
\nStates of witnesses upon which reliance has been placed, were
\nnever presented for cross-examination and, thus, the inquiry
\nreport is based upon no evidence and, therefore, I hereby quash
\nand set aside the said report, which is at Annexure 8 to the memo
\nof petition, and I hereby direct the respondents to make payment
\nof all the legally payable retirement benefits, including, Coal Mines
\nProvident Fund, Gratuity, Pension, Leave Encashment, if any, and
\nsuch other benefits, as expeditiously as possible and practicable.\n<\/p>\n
8.    With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ
\npetition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                            (D.N.Patel, J.)<\/p>\n
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
\nDated the 7th January, 2010
\nA.K.Verma\/ N.A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Rambali Mahto vs Central Coalfields Ltd & Ors on 7 January, 2010 Writ Petition (S) No. 4569 of 2008 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ——— Rambali Mahto …… Petitioner Versus 1. Central Coal Fields Limited through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Ranchi 2. General […]<\/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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-216113","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRambali Mahto vs Central Coalfields Ltd & Ors on 7 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rambali Mahto vs Central Coalfields Ltd & Ors on 7 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-21T00:46:27+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rambali Mahto vs Central Coalfields Ltd & Ors on 7 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-21T00:46:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2422,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Rambali Mahto vs Central Coalfields Ltd & Ors on 7 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-21T00:46:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rambali Mahto vs Central Coalfields Ltd & Ors on 7 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Rambali Mahto vs Central Coalfields Ltd & Ors on 7 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rambali Mahto vs Central Coalfields Ltd & Ors on 7 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-21T00:46:27+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rambali Mahto vs Central Coalfields Ltd & Ors on 7 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-21T00:46:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010"},"wordCount":2422,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010","name":"Rambali Mahto vs Central Coalfields Ltd & Ors on 7 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-21T00:46:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rambali-mahto-vs-central-coalfields-ltd-ors-on-7-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rambali Mahto vs Central Coalfields Ltd & Ors on 7 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/216113","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=216113"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216113\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216113"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216113"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216113"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}