Jharkhand High Court
Gariba Bhuia vs M/S Central Coalfields Limited Through ... on 26 February, 2020
Author: S. N. Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.1403 of 2016
Gariba Bhuia ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s -
1. M/s Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, Kotwali, Ranchi
2. Director, Personnel, CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi
3. General Manager (P & IR) CCL, Darbhanga House, Kotwali, Ranchi
4. The Chief General Manager (A) CCL, Argada, Ramgarh
5. The Project Officer, CCL, at Sirka Colliery, ARgada, Ramgarh
6. The Assistant Manager (Personnel), CCL, Sirka Colliery ARgada, Ramgarh
7. The Regional CMPF Commissioner-Region-II, Chutia, Ranchi
... RESPONDENTS
.......
CORAM: - THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner : Mr. Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Advocate .......
09/ 26.02.2020 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to pay the entire retiral benefits under different heads and also for fixation of pension from the date of his retirement with statutory interest.
2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was an employee of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd and was working as Piece Rate Worker, retired on 05.03.2003 under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Though, he retired in the year, 2003, but pension of the petitioner has not been fixed neither it has been released till date, however, several representations were made before the respondents-CCL as well as CMPF for releasing the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.
3. Mr. Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a glaring example of highhandedness in which a Grade IV employee i.e. Piece Rate Worker (Coal Cutter) has been harassed at the hands of the respondent- CCL as well as CMPF by not releasing the pension and other legally admissible dues as per NCWA VII, though he retired in the year, 2003 itself under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. He further submits that as per Section 23 of the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998, it was the responsibility of the employer to deduct from the salary of an employee the contributions towards the employee's share under the Scheme and remit the same to the Commissioner and where an employer makes default in remittance of any contribution to the Commissioner, such default in remittance on the part of the employer shall not make any adverse effect on the 2 benefits admissible to an employee under the Scheme and as such, no amount is required to be deposited by the petitioner again to the respondents for payment of pension as he has already retired in the year, 2003 itself under Voluntary Retired Scheme and was a member of Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998. Learned counsel prays that a direction be given to the respondents to fix the amount of pension of the petitioner and release the same with statutory interest and penal interest as the petitioner was forced to run from pillar to post for release of his legally admissible retiral benefits.
4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed.
5. Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- CCL vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that facts have wrongly been placed before this Court. The petitioner retired from the service by way of Voluntary Retirement Scheme and retiral benefits have already been paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel pointing out to counter-affidavit dated 10.12.2019 particularly para 8 to the said counter-affidavit submits that so far as pension is concerned, the petitioner himself has not dully filled up claim form for claiming pension under the Coal Mines Pension Scheme as the petitioner was aware that he will have to deposit substantial amount towards his contribution in view of the fact that the Provisions of CMPS-1998 were made operative w.e.f. 1994 and all employees opting for the benefits under the CMPS-1998 Scheme were required to deposit their share of arrears of contribution into pension account. He further submits that as the said Scheme of 1998 was given retrospective effect from 1994, the amount to be deducted from the salary of the petitioner was not deducted for the aforesaid period and as such, pension could not be fixed from 2003 and also the petitioner did not turn up with the required form, which was mandatory for fixation of pension and in absence of that, CCL could not sent required papers to the CMPF and as such, delay was caused by the petitioner himself and not by the respondents.
6. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent- CMPF submits that in absence of any document and recommendation from the employer of the petitioner i.e. CCL, pension could not have been fixed and released and as such, latches were on the part of the petitioner as well as CCL and CMPF cannot be held responsible for delay in fixation of pension of the petitioner.
7. 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 3 consideration. Admittedly, the petitioner is entitled for pension, but the same could not be done in absence of duly filled up claim form which was required to be placed before the respondents by the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner, an illiterate class IV employee did not submit the claim form for its onward processing but it was the duty of the employer-CCL also to enquire into the matter and complete the formalities on time so that a Grade IV employee like the petitioner would not be harassed for getting his legally admissible retiral benefits. Pension is not the bounty. An employee earns such benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and un- blemished service and this cannot be withheld without the authority of law. In the instance case, the right of petitioner to get pension regularly has been taken away by the Respondent-CCL on flimsy ground which cannot be validated. Under the circumstances, both petitioner as well as Respondent-CCL are directed to deposit their share of contributions into the pension fund, if not already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, respondent-CCL is directed to complete all the formalities of processing of pension/claim form for its onward transmission to the CMPF with proper recommendation for release of pension to the petitioner within a period of four weeks' thereafter. The petitioner and or his legal representative is/are expected to cooperate in entire process. It is made clear that if the respondents-CCL has not deposited its contribution towards the pension fund till date, the same shall be deposited with applicable statutory interest. The Respondent-CMPF in its turn is directed to release the entire amount of pension to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks' from the date of receipt of the required pension papers. It is also made clear that entire amount shall be paid as per the Scheme along with interest of 6 per cent per annum.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, instant writ petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J. ) punit/-