Lt Col Sudeep Malakar & Anr. vs Directorate General Of Resettlement & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
% Date of Decision: November 02 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010172762026
+ W.P.(C) 5476/2026 & CM APPL. 26702/2026, CM APPL.
26703/2026, CM APPL. 26704/2026, CM APPL. 55810/2026,
CM APPL. 72877/2026
LT COL SUDEEP MALAKAR & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Gautam Swarup, Mr. Rudra
Deosthali, Ms. Sakshi Pandey,
Advocates.
versus
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF RESETTLEMENT
& ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey,
CGSC with Ms. Gurleen Kaur
Waraich, Mr. Kritarth
Upadhyay, Mr. Amulya Dev
Mishra, Mr. Saksham Sharma,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners seek the
following reliefs:
“a. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other writ/ order/ direction
to the Respondents to implement and give effect to the 2025 MOU
between DGR and CIL forthwith;
b. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other writ/ order/ direction to
the Respondents, directing that the eligibility and seniority of
Petitioners shall be maintained and/or appropriately extended with
effect from the date of the 2025 MOU for such period(s) deemed
appropriate by this Hon’ble Court so as to avail the benefits and
opportunities of resettlement and rehabilitation under the Coal
Scheme;”
2. Succinctly stated, the petitioners are retired officers of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 5476/2026 Page 1 of 19

Indian Army who retired in the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in October,
2010. Petitioner No.2 retired on 02.10.2010, and Petitioner No.1
retired on 08.10.2010. Respondent No.1 is the Directorate General of
Resettlement (‘DGR’) , Ministry of Defence, which looks after the
resettlement of ex-servicemen (‘ESM’) . Respondent No.2 is Coal
India Limited (‘CIL’) and Respondent No.3 is the Union of India,
through the Ministry of Coal.
3. The Coal Loading and Transportation Scheme (‘Coal Scheme’)
was started in the year 1979 by the then Ministry of Energy (now the
Ministry of Coal) and the Ministry of Defence. It was started for two
purposes:to provide resettlement to ESM, and to give the subsidiaries
of CIL a union-free transport set-up. Under the Coal Scheme, DGR
sponsors ESM officers to form ESM Coal Transportation Companies,
which carry out coal loading and transportation work for the
subsidiaries of CIL.
4. The Coal Scheme is run through a Memorandum of
Understanding ( ‘MoU’ ) between CIL and DGR. The first MoU was
signed in the year 1993 for five years. MoUs were thereafter signed in
the years 1999 and 2013. The last MoU, before the present dispute,
was dated 12.12.2013 ( ‘2013 MoU’ ) and was valid for five years.
5. Along with the 2013 MoU, DGR issued the Guidelines on
Formation and Running of Ex-Servicemen Coal Transport Companies
( ‘2013 Guidelines’ ). Under these, an ESM officer had to register with
DGR and was to be sponsored as per his seniority in the waiting list.
Only officers below 60 years of age (Brigadier and below) and 62
years of age (General Officers) could register, and no Director could
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 5476/2026 Page 2 of 19

be above that age at the time of sponsorship. The officer also had to be
unemployed on the date of sponsorship.
6. Pertinently, Petitioner No.1 first registered with DGR under the
Security Agency Scheme on 26.07.2017. DGR confirmed the
registration by letter dated 31.07.2017. On 08.08.2018, Petitioner
No.1 applied for allotment of an ESM Coal Transportation Company
( ‘ESM Co.’ ) under the Coal Scheme. DGR confirmed his registration
under the Coal Scheme by letter dated 27.09.2018. Petitioner No.2
applied for allotment of an ESM Co. under the Coal Scheme on
25.09.2018. Both the petitioners were placed on the waiting list
maintained by DGR. In the waiting list as on 06.01.2020, Petitioner
No.1 was at Sr. No. 139.
7. By letter dated 31.10.2018, CIL informed DGR that the 2013
MoU would expire on 11.12.2018, and sent a draft of a new MoU. By
letter dated 10.12.2018, CIL extended the 2013 MoU till a new MoU
was signed. By letter dated 02.06.2020, CIL again asked DGR to
finalise the draft MoU.
8. By letter dated 26.06.2020, CIL informed its subsidiaries that
the Coal Scheme was being revoked and that all existing contracts
with ESM Cos. would be shifted to civilian contractors. By letter
dated 30.06.2020, CIL informed DGR that the Coal Scheme was
discontinued. In this manner, CIL terminated the 2013 MoU.
Consequently, no sponsorship took place under the Coal Scheme.
9. Several ESM officers challenged the letters dated 26.06.2020
and 30.06.2020 before this Court in a batch of writ petitions, the lead
matter being W.P.(C) 4384/2020 titled Col. Laxmi Narayan (Retd.)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 5476/2026 Page 3 of 19

& Ors. v. Coal India Limited & Ors . By interim order dated
21.07.2020, this Court directed that the seniority and eligibility of the
petitioners in those cases be maintained till the petitions were decided.
10. During the pendency of those petitions, this Court, by order
dated 09.04.2025, directed that the draft MoU finalised between DGR
and CIL be placed on record. CIL filed the same with its affidavit
dated 28.05.2025. In July, 2025, CIL filed an application seeking
implementation of the new MoU. By order dated 05.08.2025, the new
MoU was allowed to be executed, subject to the outcome of the
petitions. DGR and CIL signed the new MoU on 14.10.2025 ( ‘2025
MoU’ ), and it came into force on the same day.
11. The grievance of the petitioners is that the DGR did not take
any steps to implement the 2025 MoU, due to which they were at the
risk of crossing the age limit before being considered for sponsorship.
Hence, the present petition.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners were registered under the 2013 MoU and the 2013
Guidelines. The Coal Scheme came to a halt only because of the
dispute between CIL and DGR, and was revived by the 2025 MoU in
October,2025. He submits that the 2025 MoU makes two things clear:
first , that the officers registered under the earlier guidelines are
covered, and second , that DGR has to sponsor ESM Cos. within six
months of the requisition. He submits that the rights of the petitioners
to form an ESM Co. accrued in December, 2025, when they were
eligible, but DGR did not act on the requisitions. He submits that
sponsorship is the responsibility of DGR, and once an officer is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 5476/2026 Page 4 of 19

sponsored, his age is of no relevance.
13. He further submits that the delay on the part of the DGR is
unexplained. As per the reply received under the Right to Information
Act, 2005, the guidelines were sent for approval on 23.12.2025, but
were notified only on 08.06.2026. He submits that such delay is
contrary to the Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure, 2022.
He submits that the petition has not become infructuous, since framing
of guidelines is only one of the duties of DGR, and not a single ESM
Co. has been sponsored so far. Prayer (b) was not pressed only “at that
stage”, and the present case is different from the order dated
27.02.2026 in Lt. Col. Sanjay Tripathi v. Director General
Resettlement & Anr. W.P.(C) 2461/2026 , where the petitioner had
confined his reliance to prayer (a).
14. He submits that DGR has not disclosed the seniority list under
the 2025 MoU, and that out-of-turn allocations have been made to
officers much lower in seniority than the petitioners.
15. He further relies on paragraph 59 of Col. Laxmi Narayan
(supra), and submits that once a requisition is made, allocation must
follow as per the rules.
16. Per contra , the learned counsel for the respondents opposes the
petition. She submits that the petition has become infructuous, since
prayer (b) was not pressed on 23.04.2026 and only the prayer that
survives is for implementation of the 2025 MoU, in respect of which
DGR has placed its Compliance Affidavit on record pursuant to the
said order. She submits that the order relied upon by the petitioners
arose out of a different challenge, whereas in the present case, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 5476/2026 Page 5 of 19

petitioners are overage and, therefore, not eligible. She further submits
that the allegations of lack of transparency are beyond the scope of the
petition, and the scope of the petition cannot be enlarged by way of
CM APPL. 72877/2026.
17. She submits that the Coal Scheme was formulated by the
Ministry of Defence and the then Ministry of Energy, and has been
changed two to three times since. It is a welfare scheme, and
registration under it is voluntary. Relying on Col. Laxmi Narayan
(supra) , she submits that no right accrues to an officer until he is
sponsored by DGR, and once an officer becomes overage, nothing can
be done in his favour. She submits that the 2026 Guidelines came into
force only in June, 2026, by which time Petitioner No.1 had already
become overage, and Petitioner No.2 became overage soon after. She
further submits that the decision of the Division Bench in Brig.
Jaswinder Singh Gulati (Retd.) & Anr. v. Directorate General of
Resettlement & Ors . , LPA 46/2026 is good law and has not been
challenged.
18. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
19. The present petition was filed on 18.04.2026. On 23.04.2026,
when notice was issued by this Court, the learned counsel for the
petitioners stated that prayer (b) was not being pressed “at this stage”.
The respondents were directed to bear in mind interim prayer (d)
while filing their reply. By the said prayer, the petitioners had sought
disclosure of all the requisitions received by DGR from CIL or its
subsidiaries since the execution of the 2025 MoU.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 5476/2026 Page 6 of 19

20. It is relevant to note that Petitioner No.1 turned 60 years of age
on 28.04.2026. On 08.06.2026, DGR notified the guidelines for
selection and sponsorship of ESM officers under the Coal Scheme
( ‘2026 Guidelines’ ), which were amended on 10.06.2026. Petitioner
No.2 turned 60 years of age on 03.07.2026.
21. Thereafter, DGR filed a Compliance Affidavit dated
08.08.2026, stating that after the 2026 Guidelines were issued, DGR
started implementing the Coal Scheme under the 2025 MoU. It invited
willingness from eligible officers on the waiting list, checked their
applications, prepared panels and started the sponsorship process. The
requisitions received from the CIL subsidiary are being processed.
DGR has stated that prayer (a) stands complied with and the petition
has become infructuous.
22. Subsequently, by letter dated 11.08.2026, SECL cancelled its
requisition dated 05.01.2026 for the Kusmunda Area. The respondents
placed this letter on record by way of CM APPL. 55810/2026, filed on
14.08.2026.
23. During the pendency of the petition, Petitioner No.1 filed CM
APPL. 72877/2026. He seeks directions to DGR to file the waiting list
as it stood on 05.01.2026 and 28.04.2026, to publish the current
waiting list, to disclose the officers whose willingness was sought and
who were sponsored under the 2025 MoU, and to stop further
sponsorship till the seniority list is released.
24. Pertinently, Clause 6 of the 2025 MoU lists the duties of DGR.
These include sponsoring ESM Cos. to the subsidiaries of CIL and
ensuring that they report for work within six months of the request,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 5476/2026 Page 7 of 19

sponsoring eligible ESM officers as Directors, and framing guidelines
for sponsorship under the Coal Scheme. Whereas Clause 27 notes that
consideration will be as per the seniority list and officerswho have
crossed the prescribed age limit will be struck off. Clause 27 of the
2025 MoU reads as under:
“27.ESM (O) waitlisted in the Coal Scheme will be considered as
per their seniority subject to all eligibility criteria. Waitlisted ESM
(O) who have crossed the age eligibility limit will be struck off
from the waiting list and will not be sponsored for the formation of
ESM Company by DGR.”
25. Clause 10 of the 2025 MoU lays down the procedure for
selection of ESM officers. On receipt of a requisition from a CIL
subsidiary, DGR seeks willingness from the waitlisted officers as per
seniority. The willing officers are selected in groups of five as per
their seniority; their documents are inspected at DGR, and the eligible
officers are then permitted to conduct a feasibility study at the site.
26. It is relevant to note that, by judgment dated 23.12.2025, the
learned Single Judge dismissed the batch of petitions in Col. Laxmi
Narayan (supra ) . It was held that mere registration under the Coal
Scheme, or being on the waiting list, does not give any vested right,
and that the petitioners in those cases could not retain their seniority in
the new list under the 2025 MoU. The Division Bench of this Court
upheld the said judgment in Brig. Jaswinder Singh Gulati (supra) ,
decided on 02.02.2026.Another appeal against the said judgment was
dismissed by the Division Bench in Brig. Sandeep Kala v. Director
General of Resettlement & Ors, 2026:DHC:4834-DB , decided on
29.05.2026.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 5476/2026 Page 8 of 19

27. Meanwhile, on 05.01.2026, South Eastern Coalfields Limited
( ‘SECL’ ), a subsidiary of CIL, sent two requisitions to DGR for ESM
Cos., one for its Korba Area and the other for its Kusmunda Area,
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
28. At this stage, two questions arise for consideration. First ,
whether the prayer for implementation of the 2025 MoU survives.
Second , whether the petitioners, who have crossed the age of 60 years,
can still be considered for sponsorship under the Coal Scheme.
29. Before dealing with these questions, it is necessary to note the
scope of the present petition. Prayer (b), whereby the petitioners
sought that their eligibility and seniority be maintained or extended,
was not pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on
23.04.2026. The statement was indeed made “at this stage”. However,
no application has been filed thereafter to revive the said prayer. The
only main relief that remains is prayer (a) , that is, implementation of
the 2025 MoU.
30. Insofar as prayer (a) is concerned, Clause 6(c) of the 2025 MoU
itself requires DGR to frame rules, policies and guidelines for
sponsorship under the Coal Scheme. Framing of guidelines was,
therefore, a necessary step for putting the 2025 MoU into operation,
and not a mere formality. DGR has notified the 2026 Guidelines on
08.06.2026. As stated in its Compliance Affidavit dated 08.08.2026,
DGR has thereafter invited willingness from eligible officers on the
waiting list, scrutinised their applications, prepared panels and started
the sponsorship process.
31. It is the case of the petitioners that implementation means actual
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 5476/2026 Page 9 of 19

sponsorship of ESM Cos., and since no ESM Co. has been sponsored
so far, the 2025 MoU has not been implemented. This argument
cannot be sustained. The manner and pace of sponsorship are
governed by the 2025 MoU and the 2026 Guidelines.
32. This Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot supervise
each step of the sponsorship process. More importantly, any further
direction to implement the 2025 MoU would be of no benefit to the
petitioners, since they are no longer eligible for sponsorship, as
discussed hereinafter. The Court does not issue a writ that would serve
no purpose. Prayer (a) has, therefore, become infructuous.
33. That brings the Court to the principalgrievance of the
petitioners, which is that they became overage before the 2025 MoU
was put into operation.
34. It is undisputed that the age limit has always been an essential
condition of eligibility under the Coal Scheme. Under the 2013
Guidelines, only officers below 60 years of age (Brigadier and below)
could register, and no Director could be above that age at the time of
sponsorship. Clause 27 of the 2025 MoU provides that waitlisted
officers will be considered as per their seniority, subject to all
eligibility criteria, and that those who have crossed the age limit will
be struck off from the waiting list and will not be sponsored. It is the
petitioners’ own case that once they turned 60, they would no longer
be eligible. The eligibility, thus, has to be seen on the date of
sponsorship, and not on the date of registration or the date of a
requisition.
35. Admittedly, Petitioner No.1 turned 60 on 28.04.2026, that is,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 5476/2026 Page 10 of 19

ten days after the present petition was filed and before the 2026
Guidelines were notified. Petitioner No.2 turned 60 on 03.07.2026. No
sponsorship was made in favour of either of them before they crossed
the age limit. The petitioners have also not challenged Clause 27 of
the 2025 MoU or the age condition. In the absence of any such
challenge, the petitioners cannot ask the Court to ignore the condition
in their case.
36. The law on this issue is no longer res integra . In Col. Laxmi
Narayan (supra) , it was held that mere registration under the Coal
Scheme or being on the waiting list does not create any vested right.
The Division Bench in Brig. Jaswinder Singh Gulati (supra) upheld
the said judgment and held that mere application for registration under
a welfare scheme does not create a vested right and that DGR had
given no assurance to the waitlisted officers that their seniority would
be maintained. The relevant portion reads as under:
“34. The Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 can only ensure implementation of the
existing rights and cannot create new rights. The learned Single
Judge has rightly decided the issue framed regarding the retention
of the seniority in the new list pursuant to 2025 MoU in negative in
absence of any right having accrued in favour of the Appellants
just by being on the wait list as per the Scheme under 2013 MoU.
35. The one-time relaxation sought by the Appellants cannot be
granted as a matter of right. The previous relaxations granted by
the DGR cannot be cited as a precedent as the same were in
peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases. No direction in the
nature of mandamus can be granted for granting relaxation that is
contrary to the Scheme.”
37. It is also well settled that this Court, in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, enforces
only existing legal rights and does not create new rights. The Division
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 5476/2026 Page 11 of 19

Bench in Brig. Sandeep Kala (supra) has reiterated as under:
“31. This Court can enforce only existing legal rights; it cannot
create rights where none have accrued. Since no right had
crystallized in favour of the Appellant, no direction can be issued
to Respondent No. 1 to treat the Appellant as eligible under the
revised Scheme pursuant to the revised MoU.”
38. Further, in Col. Laxmi Narayan (supra), this Court, relying on
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yamuna Expressway
Industrial Development Authority & Ors. v. Shakuntla Education
and Welfare Society & Ors ., observed as under:
“61. It is also well settled law that the Court in exercise of powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not interfere
with the policies of authorities, unless, it is found that the said
policy is palpably arbitrary, malafide, irrational or violative of the
statutory provisions…”
39. The petitioners have tried to distinguish these decisions by
arguing that they are not seeking to carry forward their old seniority,
but only that the 2025 MoU be applied to them from the date it ought
to have been applied. This argument does not help the petitioners.
Accepting it would mean that the Court has to fix a notional date of its
own, and treat the petitioners as eligible on that date, even though they
have since crossed the age limit.
40. In effect, the age of the petitioners would be frozen as on that
date. There is no such provision in the 2025 MoU or the 2026
Guidelines. What the petitioners are seeking is, in substance, a
relaxation of the age limit. That is exactly the relief which was not
pressed as prayer (b), and which the Division Bench has held cannot
be granted contrary to the Scheme.
41. The petitioners have relied on Col. Laxmi Narayan (supra) in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 5476/2026 Page 12 of 19

two ways. First , they have sought to distinguish it by contending that
in that case there was no tangible or identifiable work to be allotted
when the 2013 MoU was terminated in June, 2020, whereas in the
present case, the requisitions dated 05.01.2026 had been received
when both the petitioners were eligible. Second , they have relied on
paragraph 59 of the said judgment to contend that once a requisition is
made, allocation must follow as per the rules. Neither contention helps
the petitioners. The relevant portions read as under:
“58.The aforesaid issue, i.e., whether the petitioners in the present
writ petitions should be allowed to retain their seniority in the new
list which would be introduced in pursuance of the new MoU
executed between CIL and DGR, would also include directions to
DGR to extend the eligibility of these petitioners for a certain
period despite them attaining the age of 60 or 62 as the case may
be. As pointed out hereinbefore, the petitioners, in terms of policy
formulated by DGR, had to register themselves on the portal for
consideration of their possible allocation. It is duly noted that
registration itself does not guarantee allocation of any coal
transportation work. As per the data placed on record by DGR, the
last allocation of work in terms of the seniority rules was done on
27.12.2018. In these circumstances, there is nothing on record that
the petitioners at the time when the MoU was rescinded by CIL on
26.06.2020, there was any identifiable project which would be
allocated to the persons on the wait list. It is also come on record
that as per the policy of DGR, even if, an eligible ESM is awarded
the coal transportation work and at the time of final sponsorship,
said ESM has crossed the age limit then also, he shall not be
eligible. Admittedly, the policy has not been challenged. Learned
counsel for the petitioners have strenuously argued that, even if the
policy is not being challenged, on account of supervening
circumstances during the pendency of the present petition, this
Court under writ jurisdiction can mould the reliefs of the
petitioners by relaxing the eligibility criteria for certain period and
maintain their seniority in the waiting list. Learned counsel for the
petitioners have strenuously argued on the principle of promissory
estoppel and legitimate expectation in order to buttress their
arguments with respect to the aforesaid relief.
59. The allocation of coal transportation work, as pointed out
hereinbefore, is governed by the guidelines of DGR. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 5476/2026 Page 13 of 19

petitioners or such other ESM by registering with DGR, as per
eligibility criteria, do not achieve a vested right for such
allocation. The entire process is dependent upon requisition being
made by CIL with no role of DGR with regard to the same. Thus,
in order words, registration of petitioners or such other persons
does not create any right for any allocation. It is only when a
decision in commercial interest is taken by CIL or its subsidiaries,
then, the process of allocation in terms of the rules would be
initiated.”
42. In the opinion of this Court, the reliance placed by the
petitioners on paragraph 59 of Col. Laxmi Narayan (supra) and
paragraph 34 of Brig. Jaswinder Singh Gulati (supra) is also
misplaced. Even if allocation is to follow once a requisition is made, it
has to follow as per the rules, and the rules include the age condition
under Clause 27 of the 2025 MoU . Paragraph 58 makes it clear that
even an officer who has been awarded coal transportation work is not
eligible if he crosses the age limit by the time of final sponsorship.
The petitioners stand on a weaker footing, since no work was ever
allotted to them. The existence of tangible work may have been one of
the factors noted in Col. Laxmi Narayan (supra) , but the principle
laid down is that eligibility, including the age condition, must be met
on the date of sponsorship. Similarly, the Court can enforce only an
existing right. The petitioners have no existing right to be sponsored
after crossing the age limit. The requisitions dated 05.01.2026 did not
give any right of sponsorship to any particular officer. Sponsorship
depends on the seniority of the officer, his turn in the waiting list and
his eligibility on the date of sponsorship.
43. The petitioners have further contended that sponsorship is to be
given by DGR and, once sponsorship takes place, the age of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 5476/2026 Page 14 of 19

officer has no relevance. This contention, in fact, goes against the
petitioners. It is only upon sponsorship that an officer forms an ESM
Co. and renders services under the Coal Scheme, and the benefits of
the Scheme flow from such services. The petitioners were never
sponsored, and have not rendered any services under the Coal
Scheme. They cannot, therefore, claim the benefits which would have
flowed only upon sponsorship. Further, in terms of Clause 10 of the
2025 MoU, a requisition only starts the process of selection, in which
DGR seeks willingness from the waitlisted officers as per seniority,
selects them in groups of five, inspects their documents and permits
them to conduct a feasibility study. A requisition, by itself, does not
amount to sponsorship. The Division Bench of this Court in Brig.
Sandeep Kala (supra) has held as under:
“27. Before dealing with the rival submissions, it is apposite to
note that the Scheme is a welfare measure intended to facilitate the
rehabilitation and resettlement of retired Army personnel.
However, the beneficial character of the Scheme cannot be
construed to mean that its eligibility conditions may be relaxed or
disregarded. Even a welfare measure must be administered in
accordance with its prescribed terms and conditions. Therefore, it
is not permissible to rewrite or dilute the conditions of the Scheme,
but the only issue that can be examined is whether the authorities
have acted in conformity the Scheme. The mere fact that the
Scheme is a welfare measure does not entitle the Appellant to
claim continuation of seniority under the Scheme pursuant to the
revised MoU. The discontinuation of the 2013 MoU was a matter
of policy and, since no vested rights had accrued to the Appellant
solely by reason of his placement in the Waiting List, such
discontinuation cannot be held to be arbitrary, unjust, or
prejudicial to his legal interests
28. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that by 18.01.2019
the Appellant had completed every substantive stage of the
sponsorship process and that only the formal issuance of a letter
by Respondent No. 1 remained. It is settled law that, unless and
until formal sponsorship is granted by Respondent No. 1, no
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 5476/2026 Page 15 of 19

enforceable right accrues in favour of an applicant under the
Scheme. It is an admitted position that the Appellant was never
formally sponsored by Respondent No. 1. Completion of the
preliminary or intermediate stages of the sponsorship process,
however advanced, does not amount to sponsorship and does not
vest any right to allotment under the Scheme.
29. Sponsorship is a distinct and independent stage, and
eligibility must subsist on the date on which such sponsorship is
granted. Since the Appellant had crossed the prescribed age limit
before any sponsorship was accorded, the Appellant ceased to be
eligible under the terms of the Scheme . The HIA status imposed
on 20.03.2019 was merely an administrative measure intended to
preserve the status quo pending resolution of the third-party
litigation before the P&H High Court in CWP 5225/2019.”
44. Similarly, the contention that the officers registered under the
earlier guidelines are covered by the 2025 MoU also does not help the
petitioners. Clause 27 of the 2025 MoU itself provides that the
waitlisted officers will be considered as per their seniority, subject to
all eligibility criteria. The coverage of such officers under the 2025
MoU is, thus, subject to the age condition.
45. Even otherwise, the petitioners have not been able to show that
they would have been sponsored had the 2025 MoU been
implemented immediately after 23.12.2025. In the last waiting list
dated 06.01.2020, Petitioner No.1 was at Sr. No. 139. The only
requisitions placed on record are the two requisitions of SECL dated
05.01.2026, one of which has since been cancelled. There is nothing
on record to show that the turn of the petitioners would have come
against these requisitions. The claim of the petitioners is, therefore,
based on assumption.
46. The petitioners have also argued that the delay on the part of
DGR in notifying the 2026 Guidelines was arbitrary, and relied on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 5476/2026 Page 16 of 19

reply under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It cannot be ignored
that the Coal Scheme had remained inoperative from June, 2020 till
the 2025 MoU was signed on 14.10.2025. The 2025 MoU is a fresh
framework, and guidelines had to be framed and approved by the
competent authority before it could be put into operation. As per the
reply relied upon by the petitioners themselves, the guidelines were
sent for approval on 23.12.2025, were approved on 03.06.2026, and
were notified within five days thereafter, on 08.06.2026.The
guidelines apply to all the officers on the waiting list, and not only to
the petitioners. There is no allegation that the delay was aimed at the
petitioners. The time taken by DGR in putting a fresh Scheme into
operation, after a gap of more than five years, cannot be said to be so
unreasonable or arbitrary as to call for a direction contrary to the
express terms of the Scheme.
47. Insofar as the Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure,
2022 is concerned, the same lays down the procedure for the internal
working of Government offices. It does not create any right in favour
of the petitioners to be sponsored under the Coal Scheme.
48. The petitioners have also alleged that out-of-turn allocations
have been made to officers much lower in seniority. No particulars of
any such allocation have been given, nor have the officers concerned
been made parties to the petition. The allegation is vague and does not
form part of the reliefs sought in the petition. In any event, even if any
allocation has been made contrary to the Scheme, the same cannot be
a ground to grant similar relief to the petitioners. In Brig. Sandeep
Kala (supra) , the Division Bench has held that no person can claim
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 5476/2026 Page 17 of 19

equality in illegality, and that no mandamus can be issued directing
relaxation contrary to the terms of the Scheme.
49. In view of the above, it is not necessary to go into the effect of
the cancellation of the Kusmunda requisition by SECL. The
distinction sought to be drawn by the petitioners with the order dated
27.02.2026 in Lt. Col. Sanjay Tripathi ( supra ) is also of no
consequence, since the relief of the petitioners fails on merits.
50. Insofar as the reliance placed by the petitioners on paragraph 9
of the order passed in Lt. Col. Sanjay Tripathi ( supra ) is concerned,
the learned counsel for the petitioners has himself conceded that the
facts of that case are not identical. As pointed out by the learned
counsel for the respondents, the challenge in that case was different.
The said order, therefore, does not advance the case of the petitioners.
51. Insofar as interim prayer (d) and CM APPL. 72877/2026 are
concerned, the disclosure of the requisitions received by DGR, or of
the waiting list, would serve no purpose, since the petitioners are, in
any case, not eligible for sponsorship. The prayer to stop further
sponsorship till the seniority list is released cannot be granted either,
as it would hold up the sponsorship of officers who are eligible under
the Scheme. Further, the reliefs sought in CM APPL. 72877/2026,
including publication of the waiting list and disclosure of the officers
sponsored, go beyond the scope of the present petition, which is
confined to implementation of the 2025 MoU. The scope of the
petition cannot be enlarged by way of an application.
52. This Court is conscious of the hardship caused to the
petitioners, who have served the nation and have remained on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 5476/2026 Page 18 of 19

waiting list since the year 2018. However, sympathy alone cannot be a
ground to issue a direction contrary to the express terms of the
Scheme.
53. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition. The
same is accordingly dismissed.
54. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 2, 2026/ DU
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:07.11.2026
22:25:51
W.P.(C) 5476/2026 Page 19 of 19