Jharkhand High Court
Sant Kumar Mishra vs Eastern Coalfield Limited on 23 October, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 JHA 410
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 988 of 2018
Sant Kumar Mishra ............Petitioner
Vrs.
1.Eastern Coalfield Limited, Burdwan, West Bengal
2.The General Manager, S.P.Mines Area Chitra, Deoghar
3.The Area Personnel Manager, S.P.Mines Chitra, Deoghar
4.The Assistant Personnel Manager, S.P.Mines Chitra, Deoghar
5.The Deputy Personnel Manager, S.P.Mines Chitra, Deoghar
6.The Assistant Commissioner, CMPF Office, Deoghar ............. Respondents
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi (for CMPF) : Mr. Rajesh Lala (for ECL) 07/23.10.2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, C.M.P.F and E.C.L.
2. Petitioner has superannuated on 31.05.2013 while working as Mining Sardar at S.P.Mines under Chitra Colliery, Eastern Coalfields Limited. He came before this Court seeking direction for fixation of his pension and payment of arrears thereof from the date of his superannuation with interest. He also alleged that Provident Fund amount paid to the tune of Rs.32,58,000/- approximately was less than the amount due i.e., Rs. 38 Lakhs.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed both by the E.CL and Coal Mines Provident Fund. Few facts, which are borne out from the pleadings are not in dispute (i) though petitioner made conscious exercise of option not to join the Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, 1971 vide Annexure-A and D respectively to the affidavits of ECL and CMPF, deduction from the salary towards pension fund were made continuously from 1980 till his retirement.
(ii) It is also true that petitioner did not exercise his option to join Coal Mines Pension Scheme 1998 even as per the extended date up to 2009.(iii) Deduction made from the salary towards pension fund has been refunded with interest after his retirement. (iv) Provident fund amount admissible has been paid by the respondent CMPF.
4. On the part of the petitioner, it has been argued that the conduct of the respondents shows that they have treated him as pensioner under the CMFPS, 1971 and also under CMPS, 1998. Therefore, he is entitled to pension.
5. On the part of the respondents a stand has been taken that deduction were erroneously made and were refunded after his retirement with interest. Petitioner had opted out of 1971 Scheme and failed to exercise option to join the 1998 Scheme. The aforesaid state of facts leads to a queer position. On -2- facts petitioner has a strong case whereas in law respondents are on better footing. Respondents have no justification for having continued to make deduction from his salary towards Pension fund right from 1980 till his retirement in 2013. In such circumstances the claim of such a retired employee for being treated as pensioner can be considered, however subject to return of the amount refunded (deductions with interest) and on deposit of the demand as per the 1998 Scheme for becoming eligible as pensioner.
6. If in one or the other case respondent CMPF have entertained such a plea, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner may also be allowed to make such prayer by way of representation before the competent authority under Respondent CMPF.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to return the refunded amount with interest and also agreeable to deposit any amount raised through demand note for being treated as pensioner under CMPS 1998.
8. This course appears to meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, the writ petition is being disposed of without making any comments on the merits of the case of the parties, on such plea at this stage, by allowing liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the Respondent no. 6, the Assistant Commissioner, CMPF Office, Deoghar with categorical undertaking as recorded herein above on his part as well. Respondent no. 6 would examine the prayer of the petitioner in accordance with law and take a decision thereupon, subject to the petitioner complying with the aforesaid undertaking, within a reasonable time, preferably 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A.Mohanty