Jharkhand High Court
Vinay Kumar Sahay vs The Coal Mines Provident Fund Through ... on 3 August, 2017
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S. N. Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 3960 of 2014
===============================================================
Vijay Kumar Sahay, son of late Jagdishwar Sahay, resident of Bunglow-B/23, Vasundra
Garden, Harihar Singh Road, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, Distt. Ranchi.
... ... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The Coal Mines Provident Fund through its Regional Commissioner, Region-II,
Police Line, P.O. & P.S. Hirapur, Distt. Dhanbad.
2. The Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Region-III, Police Line,
P.O. & P.S. Hirapur, Distt. Dhanbad.
3. The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through its Chief Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan,
Saraidhela, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, Distt. Dhanbad.
4. The Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Koyla Bhawan, Saraidhela, P.O.
& P.S. Saraidhela, Distt. Dhanbad.
5. The Central Coalfields Ltd. through its Chief Managing Director, Darbhanga House,
Opp. Raj Bhawan, P.O. G.P.O. P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Ranchi.
6. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Ltd., Darbhanga House, Opp. Raj
Bhawan, P.O. G.P.O. P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Ranchi
... ... Respondents.
===============================================================
For Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Prashant Vidhyarthi, Advocate
Mr. Kaustav Panda, Advocate
===============================================================
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
08/ 03.08.2017Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to pay the provident fund amount to the petitioner with statutory interest till the date of his retirement and compound interest from the date of his retirement, for one month of the year 1981 and for five months of the year 2004, as the same has not been paid him till the date of his retirement.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. Petitioner joined the services on 08.04.1975 as Graduate Engineer Training, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad. In the month of February, 2007. Petitioner was promoted as General Manager of BCCL on 08.05.2007. He was transferred and joined in Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi on the post of General 2 Manager, Washery, Construction Department, Ranchi. It is the case of the petitioner that he was superannuated on 31.12.2011 from the post of General Manager, Washery Construction and Washery Division, Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi. The petitioner, after his retirement, received the entire retiral benefits but the benefits of PF amounting to one month for the year 1981 and provident fund for the five months for the year 2004 was not extended to him on the ground that the contribution details of that period has not been provided by the Colliery Management to the Coal Mines Provident Fund (for short "CMPF"). The petitioner represented before the respondent-authorities on several occasions for giving the benefits of the aforesaid period but no heed was paid to such representation and though six long years have passed but nothing has been done and neither the amount has been given to the and as such, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court by preferring this writ petition.
4. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel strenuously urges that respondent-authorities have not paid any heed to the genuine grievances of the petitioner. A retired person has been running from pillar to post for getting his admitted dues but the same has not been extended to him illegally and arbitrarily on various grounds, which are not tenable in the eyes of law.
5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the respondent-CMPF submits that in absence of any contributory deposit details of the said period, CMPF is not in a position to pay the said amount.
6. Mr. Kaustav Panda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent BCCL submits that already we have sent the entire details to the CMPF. In support of his contention, learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards para-14, 15, 19 and 20. Para-20 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, is reproduced herein below:-
"It is stated that petitioner's provident fund contribution was sent to the CMPF Office through annual VV statement by Moondih and through supplementary VV statement by Dugdha, which has also been annexed as Annexure-'C' to this counter- affidavit, which would reflect the place of tenure of his post on the respective place of posting."
7. However, learned counsel appearing for CMPF controverts the statements made in the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and submits that the VV Statement sent by the management to the CMPF are only deduction details of the petitioner but the deposit details have not yet been 3 received by the CMPF and in this regard, several letters have been written to the CCL as well as BCCL.
8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. It is a glaring example in which a retired employee has been made to run from pillar to post at the hands of the CCL and BCCL, the subsidiaries of the Coal India Ltd. Though the employee retired in the year 2011, yet the benefits of provident fund have not been extended to him till 2017. The Officials of the CCL and BCCL are writing letters to the CMPF that they have already deposited the amount but on the other hand, it has been controverted by the CMPF that they have not received such amount. The respondents CCL and BCCL are in habits of writing letters but they are not interested in making payment of the legally due amounts of its employees. Here in this case, the petitioner is interested to get his admissible due and not interested with the writing of letters. The writing of letters are not the payments done to the petitioner.
9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and the judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to make the entire payment of provident fund amount of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with a penal amount of Rs.1.00 lakh. The same will be paid along with the provident fund amount. The respondents CCL and BCCL are hereby also directed to send the deposit details of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not sent till date. Let it be made clear that if deposit receipts have not been sent as yet, the amount of Rs.1.00 lakhs will be equally shared by the BCCL, CCL as they are also liable to make payment including the CMPF.
10. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) kunal/-