ORDER : (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.) : 1. Since the common questions of facts and law are involved in these writ petitions, they are clubbed together, heard together and finally disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners have challenged the scheme framed by SECL for the promotion of private respondents dated 15.02.2013 (Annexure P/1), in which private respondents were promoted to the post of Data Entry Operator (Technical and Supervisory) Grade “B” vide Order dated 26.10.2013 (Annexure P/2) in WPS No. 992 of 2014. 3. The facts of the present cases are that initially, the petitioners were appointed to the post of Data Entry Operator (Technical and Supervisory) Grade “E” in the year 2012. Thereafter, they were promoted to the post of Grade “D” and then Grade “C”. The consideration of promotion to the next higher post was ‘seniority-cum-merit’ for the Technical and Supervisory Grade “C” to “B”, whereas from Grade “B” to Grade “A” was ‘merit-cum-seniority’. The petitioners were waiting for their promotion from grade ‘C’ to grade ‘B’, but surprisingly, vide 504th meeting of the Management dated 31.12.2012, a decision was taken to promote departmental candidates directly in the Technical and Supervisory (T & S) Grade “B” and Technical and Supervisory (T & S) Grade “C” based on the qualification of Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.)/Diploma by ignoring the promotional channel provided in the Cadre Scheme of the National Coal Wage Agreement. The decision was approved by the Board of Directors on 15.02.2013 (Annexure P/1), the respondent authorities called for information from different areas of the department for the promotion of the departmental candidates who were appointed in Category I as dependent under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) and land oustees for their placement based on Engineering degree/Engineering diploma in Mining, Civil Electrical, Mechanical, Electronics & Telecommunications, Chemical, Computer Science/Information Technology. The petitioners challenged the decision taken by the Management dated 31.12.2012 and its approval dated 15.02.2013 by filing WPS No. 1079 of 2013 and other connected matters. An interim order was passed in WPS No. 1079 on 31.07.2013 and the respondent authorities were restrained from giving effect to the recommendation to the extent of filling up posts of Data Entry Operator Grade “C”. An interim order was passed in WPS No. 1079 on 31.07.2013 and the respondent authorities were restrained from giving effect to the recommendation to the extent of filling up posts of Data Entry Operator Grade “C”. Later on, another application for grant of interim relief was moved and the order of promotion/appointment pursuant to the scheme was stayed to the Grade “B” vide Order dated 11.11.2013, but prior to that date, the respondent authorities had implemented their policy and the private respondents were promoted to Data Entry Operator (T & S) Grade “B” vide Order dated 26.10.2013. The petitioners have challenged the policy decision taken by the respondent authorities and the order of promotion by filing these petitions. 4. Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the service conditions of the petitioners are governed under the recommendations of the Central Wage Board for the Coal Mining Industry. He further submitted that the wage structure and other conditions of service of the employees in the coal industries governed under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) and the settlement in terms of sub-section 3 of Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as “the Act, 1947”) are binding on all the parties to the industrial dispute. He also submitted that the Cadre scheme framed under the NCWA for promotion from the post of Junior Data Entry Operator Grade “E” to Grade “D”, from Grade “D” to Grade “C”, from Grade “C” to Grade “B” and from Grade “B” to Grade “A”, the minimum criteria for promotion is ‘seniority-cum-merit’ from the Technical and Supervisory Grade “D” to Grade “B” and ‘merit-cum-seniority’ for promotion from Grade “B” to Grade “A”. It is further contended that the employees of SECL, who are holding the post of Data Entry Operator (T & S) grade, can be promoted to the next higher post i.e. Grade “C”. It is also contended that in NCWA, there is no provision to promote a non-cadre employee to enter into this channel. It is further argued that the private respondents who were appointed as Category I Daily Rated/Piece Rated employees, but have qualification of B.E. or Diploma in Engineering have been directly promoted to Grade “B” ignoring the mandate of NCWA. It is also contended that in NCWA, there is no provision to promote a non-cadre employee to enter into this channel. It is further argued that the private respondents who were appointed as Category I Daily Rated/Piece Rated employees, but have qualification of B.E. or Diploma in Engineering have been directly promoted to Grade “B” ignoring the mandate of NCWA. It is also argued that the private respondents who are the dependent appointees or land oustees have been promoted by crossing or bypassing the seniority of the petitioners. It is stated that the private respondents were never in the zone of consideration for promotion, even though their names were not mentioned in the gradation list. It is further stated that such a decision has been taken by the respondent authorities just to extend the benefit to only five persons, therefore, it cannot be said that a policy decision was taken for the benefit of a class. 5. He also stated that the classification done by the respondent authorities is not valid and the same is not founded on “intelligible differentia”. He submitted that classification as made has no rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. He further submitted that the permissible classification must fulfill two conditions:- 1. The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others who are left out of the group, 2. The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. 6. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of B.V. Sivaiah and others Vs. K. Addankl Babu and Others reported in (1998) 6 SCC 720 , Union of India Vs. Atul Shukla reported in AIR 2015 SC 1777 , Mohan Mahto vs. Central Coal Field Ltd and Others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 549 and orders passed by this Court in the matters of Avinash Saloman Vs. SECL reported in 2016 CGLJ , and Smt. Asha Pandey Vs. Coal India Ltd. reported in 2016 (3) CGLJ 98 . 7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava. He submitted that the private respondents were provided dependent employment or were land oustees. SECL reported in 2016 CGLJ , and Smt. Asha Pandey Vs. Coal India Ltd. reported in 2016 (3) CGLJ 98 . 7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava. He submitted that the private respondents were provided dependent employment or were land oustees. He further submitted that private respondents had the higher qualification of B.E. & Diploma in Engineering and there was no channel for their promotion, therefore, a policy decision was taken by the respondent authorities to give them a one-time benefit of promotion. He also submitted that on account of certain necessity, some of the land oustees and dependents were promoted from Grade “D” to Grade “C” and from Grade “C” to Grade “B” taking into consideration their higher qualification. It is further contended that the decision was taken by the Management on 31.12.2012 and the same was approved by the Board of Directors on 15.02.2013. It is also contended that there is nexus between the object sought to be achieved and there is intelligible differentia for such classification. He further argued that the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened and the merit of the private respondents was considered pursuant to the scheme dated 15.02.2013. He also argued that there was no intention of the management to bypass seniority and the entire exercise was completed strictly in accordance with the provisions of NCWA. He stated that the petitions are liable to be dismissed. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttrakhand Vs. Sudhir Budakoti and others reported in (2022) 13 SCC 256 . 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 9. From a perusal of the promotion order, it is evident that initially, respondents No. 4 to 9 were appointed as Daily Rated/Piece Rated employees though they had higher qualifications like a B.E. and Diploma in Engineering. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 9. From a perusal of the promotion order, it is evident that initially, respondents No. 4 to 9 were appointed as Daily Rated/Piece Rated employees though they had higher qualifications like a B.E. and Diploma in Engineering. The petitioners were appointed as a Data Entry Operator T & S Grade “E” meaning thereby, at the time of initial appointment on the regular post, the petitioners had higher qualifications which are required for the post of Category I. The petitioners were promoted to the next higher post Grade “D” after completion of three years of service according to the scheme given in NCWA. A proper channel along with the feeder cadre for promotion is contemplated in NCWA; particularly, for the Data Entry Operator T & S group. The chart showing the channel for promotion is reproduced herein below:- Designation/Grade/feeder post Next Higher Grade & Eligibility Junior Data Entry Operator (Trainee) T & S Gr. ‘E’ Any permanent employee having matriculate or equivalent certificate with 3 years service in the Company Jr. Data Entry Operator T & S Gr. ‘D’ On Completion of 1 yr as Data Entry Operator T & S Gr. ‘E’ Jr. Data Entry Operator T & S Gr. ‘D’ Data Entry Operator T & S Gr. ‘C’ 3 year experience as Jr. Data Entry Operator T & S Gr. ‘D’ Data Entry Operator T & S Gr. ‘C’ Sr. Data Entry Operator T & S Gr. ‘B’ 3 year experience as Data Entry Operator Y & S Gr. ‘C’ Sr. Data Entry Operator T & S Gr. ‘B’ Sr. Data Entry Operator Grade I T & S Grade ‘A’ 3 years experience as Data Entry Operator T & S Gr. ‘B’ 10. From a bare perusal of the chart referred to above it is clear that a Data Entry Operator (T & S) appointed to Grade “E” may be promoted to Grade “D” after completion of 3 years of service. Likewise, the employee of Grade “D” may be promoted to Grade “C” and from Grade “C” to Grade “B”. The minimum criteria for the experience as mentioned in the above chart are three years. According to this chart, there is no provision for promotion to a higher post from any other channel. Likewise, the employee of Grade “D” may be promoted to Grade “C” and from Grade “C” to Grade “B”. The minimum criteria for the experience as mentioned in the above chart are three years. According to this chart, there is no provision for promotion to a higher post from any other channel. The employees who have been recruited from any other source cannot enter into this channel as per NCWA. Undisputedly, the private respondents No. 4 to 9, in WPS No. 1079 of 2013 and WPS No. 992 of 2014 were initially appointed as a Daily Rated employee and they did not have any substantive post in the department; even though they did not have any cadre as stated in the above chart. 11. The decision was taken by the respondent authorities on 31.12.2012 in a meeting of functional directors to promote departmental candidates who possess a B.E./diploma in Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘B’ and Grade ‘C’. The proposal of functional directors was approved by the Management on 15.02.2013. It is stated in the documents that 10 numbers of eligible B.E./Diploma in Engineering who had completed one year of service in Category I and T & S Grade “D” and 14 numbers of eligible diploma holders, who had completed one year of service in Category I in T & S Grade “C” and have secured regular 4 years degree or diploma prior to their appointment from recognized institute would be considered for placement in the respective cadre as one-time arrangement. The decision taken by the Management would show that this benefit was extended to 10-degree holders and 14 diploma holders. 12. In the absence of any rules governing the field framed by the respondent authorities or Ministry or Coal, the management cannot make the decision to promote the candidates who were not in the channel. To satisfy the principle of reasonable classification, the respondent authorities should pass two tests:-- i. There must be an intelligible differentia between those grouped together and others who are kept out of the group; and ii. There existed a nexus between the differentia and the object of the legislation. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Atul Shukla (supra), while dealing with this issue in para 10 held as under:- 10. There existed a nexus between the differentia and the object of the legislation. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Atul Shukla (supra), while dealing with this issue in para 10 held as under:- 10. The seminal question that falls for our determination in the above backdrop is whether classification of Group Captains in the Indian Air Force for purposes of age of superannuation, is offensive to Article 14 of the Constitution. A long line of decisions of this Court that have explained the meaning of equality guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and laid down tests for determining the constitutional validity of a classification in a given case immediately assume importance. These pronouncements have by now authoritatively settled that Article 14 prohibits class legislation and not reasonable classification. Decisions starting with State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali ( AIR 1952 SC 75 ) down to the very recent pronouncement of this Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI and Anr. ( AIR 2014 SC 2140 ) have extensively examined and elaborately explained that a classification passes the test of Article 14 only if (i) there is an intelligible differentia between those grouped together and others who are kept out of the group; and (ii) There exists a nexus between the differentia and the object of the legislation. Speaking for the Court Das J., in Anwar Ali’s case (supra) summed up the essence of what is permissible under Article 14 in the following words: “The classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. In order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others and (2) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of classification and the object of the Act are distinct things and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between them.” 14. The differentia which is the basis of classification and the object of the Act are distinct things and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between them.” 14. From a perusal of the decision taken by the Management vide order dated 15.02.2013 (Annexure P/1) and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that the management has taken the decision to promote only 24 employees contrary to the channel given in NCWA. Between 24 candidates and the petitioners who were appointed in a particular group from their initial appointment, there is no intelligible differentia. Further, there is no reason to bypass or ignore the terms and conditions of NCWA. Only on the ground of higher qualification ignoring a group and extending the benefit to a group of a limited number would be violative of the essence of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 15. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sudhir Budakoti (supra) wherein, it is held that when there is a reasonable basis for a classification adopted by taking note of the exigencies and diverse situations, the Court is not expected to insist on absolute equality by taking a rigid and pedantic view as against a pragmatic one. The respondent authorities ought to have substantiated that:- i. There was a reasonable basis for a classification; ii. There were exigencies and situations were diverse; iii. There was a need to ignore the tripartite agreement entered into between the management, the workers and the Union. 16. Therefore, the judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel is of no help. 17. In a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court, have held that the terms and conditions of the service of workmen working in coal mines are inter alia governed by a “Settlement” known as National Coal Wage Agreement and the said settlement in terms of Sub-section 3 of the Act of Section 18 of the Act, 1947 is binding on the parties and shall continue to remain in force unless the same is altered, modified or substituted by another settlement. 18. 18. In the present case, the respondent authorities could not produce any material to show that the terms of the settlement were altered, modified or substituted with regard to extending the benefit of promotion to private respondents. 19. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and the law as discussed above, the decision taken by the respondent authorities is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, the resolution passed by the board of directors dated 15.02.2013 (Annexure P/1) and the order of promotion dated 26.10.2013 are hereby quashed. Consequences to follow. 20. As a result, the petitions are allowed.