WP/29090/2018 of Revelli Ramana Chary Vs The Chairman and Managing Director, on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

Mr. Ch. Venkat Raman, learned counsel lor thepetitioner.

Mr. P.Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsellor the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking the follou,ingreiief:

"to issue a r'rit order or direction and moreparticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamusdeclaring that the acts deeds and things of theRespondents in not referring the Petitioner to the 4thRespondent for Me d ical Examination is illegal,arbitrary and violativc of rights guaranteed by thcConstitution of India against to the Mines Act, 1952and its Rules, 1955 and National Coal WagesAgreement (NCWA) and to pass such other order ororders may deem fit and proper in the circumstancesof the case."

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondents submitted that the subject matter/issueinvolvecl in the present writ petition is identical to the

subject matter/issue in W.P.No.4035 1 of 2018 &batch, that by common order dated 19.L2.2O23. thisCourt disposed of the u,rit petition4. For reasons alike, as stated in the common order.dated 19.12.2023, in W.P.No.40351 ol 2O18 & batchand in terms thereof, this Writ Petition is accordinglydisposed of. No order as to costs.batch, that by common order dated 19.L2.2O23. thisCourt disposed of the u,rit petition4. For reasons alike, as stated in the common order.dated 19.12.2023, in W.P.No.40351 ol 2O18 & batchand in terms thereof, this Writ Petition is accordinglydisposed of. No order as to costs.

To,

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if anv, in thisWrit Petition shali stand closeC.Writ Petition shali stand closeC.

SD/-V.KAVITHAASSISTANT REGISTAAR\,\\,/\\\SECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni [Collieries Company Limited,]Singareni Bhavan, Read Hils, Hyderabad. [At ][Telangana.]Singareni Bhavan, Read Hils, Hyderabad. [At ][Telangana.]

2. The Director (PA and W), the Singareni Collieries [Company Limited (SCCL),]Kothagudem, Kammam District. At. Telangana.Kothagudem, Kammam District. At. Telangana.

3. The General Manager [(Personnel), Welfare and CSR, the Singareni Collieries]Company Limited [(SCCL), ]Welfare Wing, [Corporate Personnel ][Department,]Singareni Bhavan, Hyderabad. At Telangana.Company Limited [(SCCL), ]Welfare Wing, [Corporate Personnel ][Department,]Singareni Bhavan, Hyderabad. At Telangana.

4. The Corporate Medical Board, Rep., by its [Chief t\/edical Officer, ][The]Singareni Collieries Company Limited [(SCCL), Kothaguem, Bhadadri]Kothagudem District. At Telangana.Singareni Collieries Company Limited [(SCCL), Kothaguem, Bhadadri]Kothagudem District. At Telangana.

5. One CC to SRl. CH VENKAT RAMAN Advocate [OPUC]

6. One CC to SRl. P SRI HARSHA REDDY [(SC ]FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIESCO.LTD) Advocate IOPUC]CO.LTD) Advocate IOPUC]

7. Two CD Copies

8. One Spare [CoPY.]

9. Annex Copy of Common Order, Dated 19-12-2023, [WP ][40351 of 2018 ][and]batch )batch )

HIGH COURTDATED: 2911212023

-\-.'i 1, rr'j,,| [,1,,]ii [:11]i,;* 1g0II2021n\. . [!1-,]t/.,.7"6r-\)y'ORDERWP.No.29090 of 2018

DISPOSING OIi TIIE WRI'I' I'E'I-ITI()\\\'t'l tlou'l [( ]['( ])s'l s\qtr$?A

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

IIRIT PETITION Nos. 40351, 40801, 4O83O, 40868, 40873,4t247, 42132, 42435, 426a4, 42728, 42769, 42770, 42776,42777, 427a5, +2808, 42460, 43127, 43146, 43240, 43332,43336, 43363, 43434, 44O2O, 44022, 4456a,46595, 46680,4677s, 46805, 46a26, 46966, 4746a, 4749a, 47568, 4757+,47650, 476a2, 4769L, 47457, 47868, 48OO9, 40649, 46647and 399O8 of2O18

COMMON ORDER:

In this. batch of writ petitions the issue is common,hence are being disposed of by a common order. Facts inwrit petition No.40351 of 2O i8 are being considered. [Prayer]in 40351 of 2018 is as follows:

"to issue u.trit or direction more particularlg onein the nature more particularly of turit of [Mandamus]declaing the action of the respondents in [issuing ][the]circular uide reference No. CRP/ PER/ IR/ [C/ ][OB ][1 ]/ [1 ][622,]dated 17.10.201 1 in restricting the age [of ][the ][petitioner]to refer to the 4 ' respondent Medical [Board as ][iLlegol]arbitrary and consequentlg [direct ][the ][respondents ][to]refer the petitioner to the 4h respondent [Medicctl ][Board]ctnd declared as unfit for the seruice [of the ][respondent]compana as per Mines Ac| 1952 and its rules [1955]and pass such other order or orders [may ][deem ]fit [and]proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. Mr. Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel [for ][the]petitioner, and Mr. P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned [Standing]counsel for the Singareni [Collieries Company ][Limited](hereinafter referred to as 'SCCL') [for ][respondents.]

3 . Brief facts:

Petitioners are all employees in Singareni [Collieries]they were being treated in different hospitals [(including ][area]hospital at Karimnagar District) for [various aihnents ][such ][as]cardiac problems, eye problems and other [health ][related]issues. Certain guidelines were issued by the [Singareni]Collieries Company Limited [(SCCL) ]uid,e [Circuiar]No.CRP/PtrR llRlClOSl /1622, dated 17.1O.2011 [regarding]medical examination of the employees by the CorporateMedical Board. The main issue, which arises [for]consideration, is with respect to Clause I of Circular, datedL7.1O.2Ol1, which is as follows:

"the applications of the emplogees utho arehauing less than 2 gears of left ouer seruice as ondate of putting up the application shall rtot beforunrded [by ][the ][Mine/ Department ][itself."]hauing less than 2 gears of left ouer seruice as ondate of putting up the application shall rtot beforunrded [by ][the ][Mine/ Department ][itself."]

3. 1. In this batch, petitioners are aggrieved by Clause I ofCircular, dated 17 .lO .2O 1 I imposing a condition [in]restricting such of those employees having less than 2 yearsof left over service being referred to Corporate Medical Boardas on date of putting up application. It is thr: grievance of petitioners that this condition is illegal, arbitrary andconsequently be directed to [be referred ][to ][Corporate ][Medical]Board 3 .2. ln all these writ petitions, interim directions [were]issued. One such interim direction in I.A.No.O1 of 2018 [in]W.P.No.47B46 of 2018 is as follorvs:

"Prima facie, clause (1) of the Circular dated17. 1O.2O 1 1 issued bg the Singareni [Collieries]Compang Limited (SCCL) refusing to forwardapplications of emplogees uho haue [less ][than ][tu-to](2) years of left ouer seruice to the CorporateMed.ical Board uiolates Article [2 ]I of theConstitution of India.Therefore, the said Circular to that [extent]shaLl stand suspended.There shall be inteim direction [as ][prayed ]for."

3 .3. Pursuant to interim directions, [writ ][petitioners ][were]subjected to medical examination [and ][proceedings ][were]issued by the Corporate Medical [Board, ][that ][after ][medical]examination, benefits [due, to the petitioners ][were ][paid.]

3.4. It is trite to take note [of the fact ][that ][a circular ][dated]2l.Ol.2Ol9 was issued [vide ][No.CRP ]IPER/IR/C/081/139,deleting Clause I of the earlier [Circular, dated ][17.10.201 ][1.]In Circular dated 21.01.2OI9, [it ][was stated ][that ][empioyees]who completed 58 [years ]of [age ][and ][found ][medically ][unht]

were entitled for benelit(s) as per their eligibility1l laccordance with the Office Memorandum datecl i7.05.2013,uide No.CRPIPtrRIIRIC/O81 ll1O2. Challenge in a1l thesewrit petitions is to Ciause I of Circular, dated 1'l.10.20i [1.]

4. Learned counsels made submissions as per [the]averments in affidavit of W.P.No.4O351 of 2018

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted thatall the petitionersareemployees of Singareni CollieriesLimited and are aggrieved by the restriction imposed [vide]circular dated 17. lO.2Ol1 and such restriction is illegal andarbitrary. The learned counsel relied on a [judgment]1t-IW.A.No.1O80 ol 2017 and batch, dated 06.O9.2017 andcontended that the facts ir-r the said case(s) are sirnilar to thefacts in the instant case and submitted that similardireclions be issued. Learned counsel furtl-rer relied onjudgment in W.A.No.477 of 2Ol3 for the proposition that thepetitioners be referred to the Medical Board as directed bythe Hon'ble Court in W.A.No.477 of 2013. Rt:liance is alsoplaced on the order of a learned Single JudgelllW.P.No.29477 of 2023 for the proposition that lretitioners be examined by the Appellate Medical Board. It [was further]contended that SCCL has [medical records ]of [all ][the]petitioners, hence, no [physical ]examination [is ][required. It ][is]submitted that SCCL can always [examine ][the ][records ][and]arrive at the conclusion whether [the petitioners ][are ][medically]fit or not. It is further contended that [law ][is ][dynamic ][in]nature and has to suit [evolving needs ][and ][requirements ][of]the society and that in the [present ][case ][facts ][need ][to ][be]properly appreciated and relief be [granted ]as [prayed ]for.

5. 1. It is submitted by [learned counsel ][that ][petitioners ][were]suffering with various ailments such as Cardiac [and ][other]problems, for past few years, were being treated in [various]hospitals, including area hospital, [Karimnagar' ][It ][is]submitted that they made applications [to ][refer ][their ][cases ][to]the Corporate Medical [Board, ][to ][avail ][voluntar5l ][retirement ][as]per Circular issued in year 2016. It is contended that [after]issuance of Circular dated [17. ][10.20 ][1 ][1, ][making ][applications]for voluntary retirement [was ][declared ][as ][illegal. It ][is further]submitted that the [respondents ][have ][knowledge ][about ][the]

health issues/ problems of the petitioners atrd were rlotreferring their cases to Medical Boarcl.

5.2. Il is submitted that Circular dated 17.1o.201i isagainst Mines Act, 1952 and Mines Rules, 1955, and thatimposing conditions restricting for referring the cases toMedical Board is bad in law and that the right of employee tobe examined by the Medical Board is taken aw:ry by [the]Circular. It is submitted that Mines Act is a welfare Act andthe same has not been appreciated by the SCCL beforeissuance of the Circular.

6. learned Standing Counsel for the respondentssupported the circular issued by SCCL. It is submitted thatpursuant to interim directions, Medical Exat'ninertion u,asconducted for all the employees and appropriat c proceedingswere issued by Corporate Medical Board. It is furthersubmitted that subsequent to interim directions, anotherCircular was issued by the SCCL uideNo.CRP/PER IIR/ClOBl /139, dated 2t.O7.2o79, deletingClause I of the earlier Circular and that employees, who weremedically unfit were entitled for benelits as per eligibility prescrlbecl1nOfflceMemorandumNo.CRP/PER/IRlClOBl/11O2, dated 17.O5.2O13. It is alsosubmitted that in view of the subsequent developments andwithdrawal of Clause I ol circular, dated 17 .lO.2Ol1, nocause survives for adjudication and hence, all these writpetitions are liab1e to be dismissed 6.1. It is further contended by learned counsel forrespondents that in similar matters, this Court passed finalorders in a number of writ petitions and same orders bepassed. It is contended that any deviation from such earlierorders have to be based on demonstration of new set of factsand circumstances, which are not lorthcoming in this batchof writ petitions. Hence, the contention of the [petitioners]counsel is not tenable as no new grounds have been putforth.

7. Heard learned counsels, perused the record, Circularsissued and orders passed by learned Single Judge1nW.P.No.41016 of 2OlB and batch.

B. It is pertinent to note that [reliance ][placed ][by ][learned]counsel for petitioners on the order [of ][the Division ][Bench ][in]Writ Appeal No. 1O8O of [2017 ], [dated ][06.09.2017 ][is]misconceived. The Division Bench [was ][dealing ][with ][an issue]with regards to the certificates of [fitness issued ][by ][the]Doctors of SCCL and that such [certificates were biased and]that an opportunity must be [given ]to [the ][employees ][to]undergo medical examination even though [not ][entitled ][to]such re-examination under Rule 29-J of [the ][Mines ][Rules,]1955. This order does not come to the [rescue ][of ][the ][writ]petitioners.

8.1. Reliance placed on the order(s) in [Writ ][Appeal ][No-477]of 2013, dated 17.06.2013 and W.P.No.29477 [ot ][2023 ][are]misconceived. As the facts in the said [cases ][are ][not ][similar]to the facts in the instant case and hence [not ][applicable.]

9. In this batch of writ petitions, the [issue ][is similar to ][tl-re]issue considered in W.P.No.41016 of 2O18 and batch [and ][a]learned Single Judge of this Court passed orclers [on]O4.O2.2O2O, this Court is not inclined to take a [different]v1ew. The learned Single Judge passed the following order:

"4. Illhile so. Cirrular No.CRP/PER/I R/C/081/ 1lg, dated21.0t.2019, u'as is-vrcd deleting [clatse ][(i) ][ql ][the Circulor' ][dated]17.10.2011. ht the said circular, it [is ][also ][stated ][that ][the entployees]who have compleled 58 veurs of age [and ][v'ho ][are ]-firund [to ][bc]tnedicdly u4fit are e titled to [the bencfit ][as ][pcr ][their eligibility ][in]accordqnce v'ith Olfice MentorandunrNo.CRP/PER/|R/C/081/ [I ][102. ][dared ][17.05.2013. ][A ][request ][has ][to]be made b, all those [emploS,ses ][to ][subject ][thent ]Jbr [medical]examinalion.

5. In view of the subsequent [developments, ][withdrawing ][clause ][(i)]of the Circular duted [17.10.2011, ][thc ][prayer ][soughr ][in ][tlrc writ]petilions is alread-t, granted b;' Ilrc respondert [- ][(:ompa ]'.

6. Learned counsel for [lhe ]ltelitioners [sttbntils ][tlwt ][ptu'suat ][lo ][the]interim orders, all lhe [petitioners were ][subiected ][to ][medicol]examinution and in view [thereoJ, ][the ][cause ][in ][the ][wril ][petitiotls]does not survire for [adjudication.]

7. Recording, the said submission, [lhe ][l{rit ][Pelilions ][are ][dismissed.]There shall be no order [us ]to [costs. Pending ][Mi.scellaneou.s]Petitions, if any, shall [stand closed. ]["]

10. It is agreed by the learned [counsels ][appearing ][on]behalf of petitioners and [respondent organisation ][that, ][if ][any]of the petitioners in the batch [of ][writ ][petitions were ][not]subjected to medical [examination, ][such ][of those ][petitioners]reserve the right to approach [the ][proper ][Court/ ][Folam ][to]seek directions and [liberty ][is ][granted ][to ][such ][of ][those]petitioners. In view of the [statement ][made before ][this ][Court]by the counsels, [order(s) passed ][in ][W.P.No-41O16 ][of ][2018]and batch are modifled [to ][the ][extent ][of ][granting ][liberty ][to]

only such of those petitioners, who were not subj ected tomedical examination to take recourse as per liberty grar-rtedFor all other petitioners in this batch of writ petitions, theorder(s) dated O4.O2.2O20 passed by the learned SingleJudge in W.P.No.41016 of 2018 and batch, is applicable, asthe facts are similar to the present batch of writ petitionsThis Court is not inciined to differ from the vir:rv taken as ir-rthe order in W.P.No.41016 of 2018 ancl batch. clated04.o2.2020

1 1. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petitions aredisposed of. There shall be no order as to costsdisposed of. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stanclclosed.closed.

Date: 19.12.2023PlpNote: A copy ofordcr inW.P.No.4 1016 of 201 lt & Batchbe annexed to this ordcr.

ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J

D^t-t