Jharkhand High Court

Cont.(Cvl)/645/2025 of MANOJ KUMAR (PERSONNEL NO. 4796) Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 1 April 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 645 of 2025 Manoj Kumar (Personnel No. 4796), aged about 51 years, son of Shri Amir Singh, resident of Quarter No. AC/07 Overman colony, P.O. Jitpur, P.S. Jorapokhar, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand). …. ---

2026:JHHC:9170-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 645 of 2025

Manoj Kumar (Personnel No. 4796), aged about 51 years, son of Shri Amir Singh, resident of Quarter No. AC/07 Overman colony, P.O. Jitpur, P.S.

Jorapokhar, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

….

--- Petitioner

Versus

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Mr. Amarendu Prakash, son of not known to the petitioner, The Chairman, Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, P. Box. No. 3049, New Delhi 110 003, PO - Lodhi Road Head Post Office, New Delhi, P.S.

- Lodhi Colony South.

3. Mr. Birendra Kumar Tiwari, son of not known to the petitioner, Director (Raw Material and Logistic) and Nominated Owner of the Collieries, Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL), Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, P. Box. No.3049, P.O., P.S. & District-New Delhi 110 003, Present address C.M.O. Complex, Near Administrative Building, M.G. Road, Bokaro Steel City.

4. Mr. Uday Kulkarni, son of not known to the Petitioner, General Manager (P&A), SAIL Colliery Division, office of the Steel Authority of India Ltd., Growth Division, 2nd Floor, Trimurti Bhawan, 97, Park Streets, P.O., P.S. & District-Kolkata- 700 016 (West Bengal), present address- SAIL Colliery Division, Central Office, Chasnalla, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

5. Mr. Thakur Shashank Ranjan, son of not known to the petitioner, General Manager, (Chasnalla and Jitpur Colliery), Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), Colliery Division, Chasnalla, P.O. & P.S.-Patherdih, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

6. Mr. Manish Kumar, son of not known to the Petitioner, Deputy General Manager/Agent, Jitpur Colliery, Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), Colliery Division, P.O.-Jitpur, P.S.-Jorapokhar, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

7. Mr. Arup Ratan De, son of not known to the petitioner, Assistant General Manager (Egg.) & I/C (P&A) Chasnalla & Jitpur, Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), Colliery Division, Chasnalla, P.O.-Chasnalla, P.S.-Patherdih, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

8. Mr. Raghwendra Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner, Colliery Manager (J), Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), Colliery Division, Jitpur Colliery, PO-Jitpur, PS- Jorapokhar, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

9. Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Singh, son of not known to the petitioner, Executive Director, Colliery, SAIL, 2nd Floor, Trimutri Bhawan, 97, Park Streets, Kolkata, P.O., P.S. & District-Kolkata-700016 (West Bengal), present address- Colliery Division, Officer Colony, Chasnalla, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand). ….

--- Opp. Parties

---

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

---

For the Petitioner:

Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate

For O.P. Nos.2-9:

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

For the State:

Ms. Shilpi, AC to SC (Mines)-II

---

08 / 01.04.2026 Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that being aggrieved with the disbursement of lesser amount as per the calculation made by the opposite party as also none transmission of the amount to the CMPF Account, the petitioner has already approached the Central Administrative Tribunal.

2. This Court considering the fact that the petitioner has already approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by raising the aforesaid grievance, which has also been raised in the instant contempt proceeding on the issue of the deduction of the amount at source as also none transmission of the amount to the CMPF fund.

3. In the backdrop of the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the present contempt case is to be disposed of.

4. Accordingly, Cont. Case (Civil) No. 645 of 2025 stands disposed of.

5. The liberty is accorded to pursue the aforesaid issue before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal will decide the issue independent of the disposal of the instant contempt case on its own merit.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

Date: 01.04.2026 RKM.

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead