{"id":23837,"date":"2007-04-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007"},"modified":"2018-05-07T07:46:58","modified_gmt":"2018-05-07T02:16:58","slug":"coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Coal India Ltd. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Mishra on 17 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Coal India Ltd. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Mishra on 17 April, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1997 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nCoal India Ltd. & Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSaroj Kumar Mishra\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/04\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n[Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.  15805 of 2006]
\nWITH
\nCIVIL APPEAL NO.1998\/2007 @ S.L.P.(C)No. 16569 of 2006<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese two appeals involving similar questions of law and facts were
\ntaken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common
\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tRespondents herein were employees of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., a
\nGovernment Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies
\nAct.  Coal India Limited admittedly is the holding company of Mahanadi
\nCoalfields Ltd.  Appellant No. 1 framed rules laying down terms and
\nconditions of service of its Executive Officers.   The Executive Cadre of the
\nOfficers of Appellant No. 1 is divided in various grades namely Gr. E\/1 to
\nGr. E\/8.   Indisputably, promotion from A\/3 to A\/4 grades is governed by the
\nrule of Seniority-Cum-Merit.  For the purpose of considering the cases for
\npromotion of the eligible officers from Grade E\/3 to E\/4, a departmental
\npromotion committee held its meeting in April-May, 1999.\n<\/p>\n
\tRespondents were, however, not promoted inter alia on the premise
\nthat the General Manager (Vigilance) of the Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.
\nintimated to the concerned authority that vigilance cases were pending
\nagainst them.  Orders of promotion were issued in favour of the officers who
\nwere admittedly junior to them on 31.8.1999.   When despite representation,
\nthey were not promoted on the ground of pendency of vigilance cases, they
\nfiled writ petitions before the Orissa High Court praying inter-alia for
\nnotional promotion with effect from the date their juniors were promoted.\n<\/p>\n
\tDuring pendency of the Writ Petitions namely in June, 2002, charge
\nsheets were issued and upon a disciplinary proceeding having been initiated,
\na penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year without
\ncumulative effect was imposed upon the respondents in July, 2003.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore the Orissa High Court as also before this Court, reliance has
\nbeen placed by the appellants on office memorandums dated 19\/27th June,
\n1979. Upon taking into consideration the said office memorandum as also
\nsubsequent memorandums and in particular the one dated 8.1.1981, the High
\nCourt held;\n<\/p>\n
“15.  Taking into consideration of the entire factual
\nmatrix of the case and keeping in view the ratio
\ndecided by the Apex Court in different cases, so far
\nas the present petitioner is concerned, the ratio
\ndecided in the case of Union of India Vrs. K.V.
\nJankiraman and Union of India-Vrs.-Dr.(Smt.)
\nSudha Salhan has to be followed and since the
\nconcerned employees in the cases of Delhi
\nDevelopment Authority-Vrs. H.C. Khurana (AIR
\n1993 S.C. 1488), Union of India vrs.-Kewal Kumar
\n(AIR 1993 SC 1585) and Union of India vrs- R.S.
\nSharma (AIR 1993 S.C. 2337) stand on a different
\nfooting than the present petitioner, the ratio decided
\nin those cases cannot be followed in the case of the
\npresent petitioner.  In the case of R.S. Sharma the
\norder of the Tribunal directing to open the sealed
\ncover and giving effect to the recommendation made
\nby the DPC on the ground of non-service of charge
\nmemo, was set aside keeping in view the
\nRules\/Circulars\/O.M. in force more particularly
\nclause-iv of the O.M. wherein it is provided that
\nduring the pendency or “investigation on serious
\nallegation of corruption, bribery or similar grave
\nmisconduct is in progress either by the CBI or any
\nagency, departmental or otherwise”, sealed cover
\nprocedure can be resorted to till the proceeding is
\nover in all respect.  But in the instant case on the
\nbasis of O.M.\/Circular\/Rules followed by the
\nMCL\/Coal India, the sealed cover was opened and
\nthe petitioner was given promotion to next higher
\ngrade (Grade-4) since the so called investigation was
\nnot completed within two years from the date the
\nimmediate junior to the petitioner was promoted.
\nThis particular office memorandum has been issued
\nmay be with the intention to check prolonged
\nenquiry covering a period of more than two years in
\nrespect of certain allegations against an employee,
\nso that the concerned employee shall not be harassed
\nor debarred from getting benefit on the
\nrecommendation of DPC for an indefinite\/prolonged
\nperiod on the ground of pendency of such enquiry,
\nwithout initiation of a departmental proceeding after
\nservice of charge memo.  However once the sealed
\ncover is opened and the petitioner is allowed the
\nbenefit of the recommendation of DPC by giving
\nhim promotion to the next higher grade, he shall be
\nentitled for all consequential benefits from the date
\nhis immediate junior got the same.  In this case the
\npetitioner had never been suspended during the
\nperiod of the so-called preliminary enquiry nor
\nduring the period of departmental enquiry.   As such,
\nhe shall be entitled for promotion notionally with
\neffect from the date his immediate junior got the
\nsame along with all service and financial benefit.”\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the said findings, the writ petitions were allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nappellant took us through the said office memorandum dated 27.6.1979 and
\nsubmitted that as in terms thereof pendency of a vigilance or departmental
\naction would itself be sufficient for not promoting the officer who would, in
\nthe event of their complete exoneration would be promoted as and from the
\ndate his immediate junior has been promoted;  the impugned judgment
\ncannot be sustained.  The High Court, Mr. Sinha submitted, committed
\nmanifest error in invoking the sealed cover procedure which is not
\napplicable to the fact of the present case.  If the impugned judgment is
\nupheld, a flood-gate of litigation would ensue.   Strong reliance in this behalf
\nhas been placed by Mr. Sinha on a reported decision of this case in Manoj
\nKumar Singh v The Coal India Ltd. & Ors. in  Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2005
\ndisposed of on 2.1.2006 as also on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Srikant
\nChaphekar<\/a> [1992 (4) SCC 689].\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Janaranjan Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nrespondent, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe factual matrix involved in the matter being not in dispute, the
\nonly question which falls for our consideration is interpretation of the office
\nmemorandums dated 27.6.1979 and 8.1.1981.\n<\/p>\n
\tBoth First Appellant as also Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. are ‘State’
\nwithin the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.  Their action
\nmust, therefore, satisfy the test of reasonableness and fairness.   Although an
\nemployee of a State is not entitled to promotion to a higher post as a matter
\nof right, he is entitled to be considered therefor in terms of Article 16 of the
\nConstitution of India.   A right of promotion can be withheld or kept in
\nabeyance only in terms of valid rules.   Rules operating in the field do not
\nprovide that only because some allegations have been made as against an
\nofficer of the company, the same would itself justify keeping a valuable right
\nto be considered for promotion of an employee in abeyance.  When a
\nquestion of that nature comes up for consideration before a superior court,
\nthe extant rules operating in the field must necessarily be construed in the
\nlight of the constitutional scheme of equality.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe office memorandum dated 19\/27 June 1979 reads as under:-
\n“The issue relating to procedure to be followed with
\nregard to promotion of an officer who has been kept
\nunder suspension and\/or against whom a
\nvigilance\/departmental action is pending has been
\nengaging the attention of the management for some
\ntime past.   Taking into consideration the extant rules
\nand orders of the Government of India in this regard the
\nfollowing decision has been taken:\n<\/p>\n
a)\tAll orders for promotion will be issued only
\nafter vigilance clearance.\n<\/p>\n
b)\t***\t\t     ***\t\t\t***<\/p>\n
c)\tWhen an officer has been completely
\nexonerated and he is subsequently promoted, his
\nseniority should be fixed as if he had been promoted in
\naccordance with the position assigned to him in the
\nselect list.  Period of his eligibility for consideration for
\npromotion to the next higher grade should be reckoned
\nwith reference to the date his immediate junior has been
\npromoted.  The pay of such an executive on promotion
\nshould be fixed notionally by allowing the intervening
\nperiod during which the officers could not be promoted
\ndue to his suspension and\/or pending departmental
\nenquiry to be counted for increments in the higher
\ngrade but no arrears would be admissible to him.
\n(Corrected as per No. C-5(A)\/50972 (Vol.1) Pt.\/1507
\ndated 10.07.1979).”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe said office memorandum was, however, clarified by a subsequent
\nmemorandum dated 8.1.1981 wherein it was laid down
\n“It has been laid down in CIL O.M. number quoted
\nabove that all orders for promotions will be issued only
\nafter vigilance clearance.  The stage at which a
\nvigilance enquiry should affect the promotion,
\nconfirmation et. Of an employee of CIL and its
\nsubsidiaries has not been clearly defined in the above.
\nQuoted office memorandum.   Vigilance inquiries take
\nconsiderable time to complete and in absence of a clear
\nindication regarding the point at which such inquiries
\nshould stand in the ay of an officer’s promotion, there is
\nscope for confusion on this score.   This matter has been
\nengaging the attention of the management for quite
\nsome time.  Taking into consideration the existing
\norders of the Government of India in this regard, the
\nfollowing decision has been taken.\n<\/p>\n
“All orders for promotions will be issued only after
\nvigilance clearance.   However, vigilance clearance
\nshall not be withheld for the mere fact that a P.E. or
\nR.C. has been registered by the CBI against an officer
\nor that complaints are being looked into a preliminary
\nenquiry departmentally but no conclusion has been
\nreacted about the prima facie guilt of the officer.
\nVigilance clearance shall be withheld only when :\n<\/p>\n
1)\tIn the case of a Preliminary Enquiry, either by
\nthe CBI or departmental agencies, the competent
\nauthority, on consideration of the results of the
\ninvestigation, has formed the opinion that a charge-
\nsheet may be issued on specific imputations for
\ndepartmental action, and <\/p>\n
2)\tIn case of a regular case, the competent
\nauthority has decided to accord saction for prosecution
\nof the officer in Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tUntil the competent authority arrives at such a
\nconclusion, the officer may be treated at par as per with
\norders in the matter of promotion, confirmation etc. <\/p>\n
\tThese instructions shall come into force with
\nimmediate effect.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is not the case of the appellants that pursuant to or in furtherance of
\nthe complaint received by the vigilance department, the competent authority
\nhad arrived at a satisfaction as is required in terms of the said circulars that a
\ncharge sheet was likely to be issued on the basis of a preliminary enquiry
\nheld in that behalf or otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe circular letters issued by the appellants put restrictions on a
\nvaluable right of an employee. They therefore, are, required to be construed
\nstrictly.  So construed there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the
\nconditions precedent contained therein must be satisfied before any action
\ncan be taken in that regard.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe may also notice that a revised guideline was also issued on or
\nabout 14.5.2002, wherein it was stated;\n<\/p>\n
“the Vigilance clearance shall be withheld only
\non the ground (a) when officer is under
\nsuspension (b) when the officer, in respect of
\nwhom a charge sheet has been issued and
\ndisciplinary proceedings are pending; and (c)
\nwhen an officer in respect of whom prosecution
\nfor a criminal charge is pending.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe said circular although is not ipso facto applicable in this case,
\nclearly laws down the law otherwise prevailing.\n<\/p>\n
\tReliance placed by Mr. Sinha on Manoj Kumar Singh (supra) is
\nwholly misplaced.  Therein no law was laid down.  It does not contain any
\nratio decidendi.  The question as to whether in absence of any chargesheet or
\nat least in absence of any satisfaction having been arrived by the disciplinary
\nauthority that a prima facie case has been made out for proceeding against an
\nemployee, the Vigilance clearance can be given or not, did not fall for
\nconsideration at all therein.  No issue in that behalf was framed; no argument
\nwas advanced; no reason has been assigned in support of the said order.
\nThis Court merely stated;\n<\/p>\n
“In the present case, the decision to take action
\nagainst the appellant had been formed on
\n20.1.99. Therefore, the appellant could not have
\nbeen granted vigilance clearance. In the
\ncircumstances, we see no reason to interfere with
\nthe order under challenge.  The appeal is,
\naccordingly, dismissed.   There shall be no order
\nas to costs.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is surprising that although the appellant is a ‘State’ within the
\nmeaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it failed  even to be fair to
\nthis Court inasmuch as the subsequent office memorandum dated 8.1.1981
\nand\/or 14.5.2002 were not brought to its notice.  Had the subsequent office
\nmemorandums and in particular the one dated 8.1.1981 been brought to the
\nnotice of the Court,  we have no doubt in our mind that the terms of the
\norder passed in Manoj Kumar Singh (supra) would have been different.\n<\/p>\n
\tSimilarly, reliance placed on Srikant Chaphekar (supra) by Mr. Sinha,
\nis equally mis-placed.  Therein a Departmental Promotion Committee
\nconsidered the adverse remarks passed against the employee concerned.  In
\nthis case, a departmental promotion committee did not take into
\nconsideration the case of the respondents at all. They were indisputably
\nentitled to be considered for promotion having regard to the rule of
\nseniority-cum-merit.  Although, in the said rule, merit has some role to play,
\nbut the promotion would not be based only on merit.\n<\/p>\n
\tSee State of Kerala and Another v N.M. Thomas and Others [AIR
\n1976 SC 490], E.V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors [(2005) 1
\nSCC 394], Bhagwandas Tiwari and Ors. v Dewas Shajapur Kshetriya
\nGramin Bank and Ors. [2006 (11) SCALE 593], B.V. Sivaiah and Ors. v K.
\nAddanki Babu and Ors. etc.  [(1998) 6 SCC 720].\n<\/p>\n
\tA departmental proceeding is ordinarily said to be initiated only when
\na chargesheet is issued.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe floodgate argument also does not appeal to us.   The same appears
\nto be an argument of desperation.  Only because, there is a possibility of
\nfloodgate litigation, a valuable right of a citizen cannot be permitted to be
\ntaken away.  This Court is bound to determine the respective rights of the
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
\tSee Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Anr. v Union of India and Ors. [(2005) 4
\nSCC 649], Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and Anr. v C.K.
\nRajan and Ors. [(2003) 7 SCC 546].\n<\/p>\n
\tEven, in such a case, the Employer is not in a helpless situation.
\nDespite such promotion if the delinquent employee has suffered punishment,
\nsubsequently appropriate steps may be taken on the basis thereof.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe, therefore, are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the
\nimpugned judgments. The appeals being wholly without merits, are
\ndismissed with costs.   Counsel’s fee assessed at Rs. 50,000\/-.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Coal India Ltd. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Mishra on 17 April, 2007 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1997 of 2007 PETITIONER: Coal India Ltd. & Ors RESPONDENT: Saroj Kumar Mishra DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/04\/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/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-23837","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCoal India Ltd. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Mishra on 17 April, 2007 - 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\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Coal India Ltd. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Mishra on 17 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-07T02:16:58+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\\\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Coal India Ltd. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Mishra on 17 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-07T02:16:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2471,\"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\\\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Coal India Ltd. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Mishra on 17 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-07T02:16:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Coal India Ltd. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Mishra on 17 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Coal India Ltd. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Mishra on 17 April, 2007 - 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\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Coal India Ltd. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Mishra on 17 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-07T02:16:58+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\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Coal India Ltd. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Mishra on 17 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-07T02:16:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007"},"wordCount":2471,"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\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007","name":"Coal India Ltd. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Mishra on 17 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-07T02:16:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coal-india-ltd-ors-vs-saroj-kumar-mishra-on-17-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Coal India Ltd. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Mishra on 17 April, 2007"}]},{"@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\/23837","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=23837"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23837\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23837"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23837"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23837"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}