Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Petitioner vs Central Coalfields Limited Through Its ... on 26 February, 2018

Author: Shree Chandrashekhar

Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                W.P.(S) No. 3665 of 2010

      Piyaso Devi, W/o­ Late Nageshwar Munda, R/o­village­Kaihara, 
      PO­Sandi, PS­Ramgarh, Dist.­Ramgarh, Jharkhand
                                                  ...   ...  Petitioner
                            Versus
      1. Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman cum 
      Managing Director, At&PO­Darbhanga House, PS­Kotwali, Ranchi
      2. The General Manager (P&IR), Central Coalfields Ltd., 
      Darbhanga House, AT&PS­Darbhanga House, PS­Kotwali, Ranchi
      3. General Manager (Pension), Central Coalfields Ltd.,                
      At & PO­Darbhanga House, PS­Kotwali, Ranchi
      4. The General Manager, Central Coalfields Ltd., Rajrappa Area, 
      AT &PO­Rajrappa, PS­Rajrappa, District­Ramgarh
      5. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Ltd., Rajrappa Project, 
      At &PS­Rajrappa, PS­Rajrappa, District­Ramgarh
      6. The Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, 
      Region­II, Mayfield Building, Station Road, PO&PS­Chutia, 
      District­Ranchi.                                    ... ... Respondents
                          -----------------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner    : Mr. Om Prakash Prasad, Advocate For the CMPF  : Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy, Advocate

------------------

10/26.02.2018 Reiterating   the   stand   of   CMPF,   Mr.   Prashant  Vidyarthy, the learned counsel submits that payment of provident  fund when made includes deduction, if any, from the salary of  the employee and it also carries statutory interest. 

Prayer in the writ petition is for a direction upon the  respondent­CMPF to fix and pay pension to the petitioner. 

In the writ petition the original writ petitioner has not  disclosed any detail regarding payments made to him after his  retirement. He has not even disclosed the provident fund amount  paid to him.

In   the   counter­affidavit   the   respondent­CMPF   has  disclosed that husband of the petitioner did not opt for pension  scheme vide Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998, which was an  optional  pension  scheme. The employee had not exercised the  option   by   submitting   PS­I   Form   within   the   specified   time   and  therefore   claim   raised   on   behalf   of   his   wife   cannot   be  entertained. In so far as the payment of deductions made from  the   salary   of   the   employee   is   concerned   in   absence   of  foundational   facts,   no   positive   direction   can   be   issued   to   the  CMPF.   If   the   petitioner   furnishes   indisputable   documents  indicating   non   payment   of   deductions   from   the   salary   of   the  employee, the amount accumulated on that count with interest  shall be paid to her, if already not paid to the employee.

The writ petition stands disposed of. 

   (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Tanuj/­