Jharkhand High Court
Md. Maniruddin vs Central Coalfields Limited Through Its ... on 4 December, 2018
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 55 of 2018
---
Md. Maniruddin --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director
2. The Project Officer, Kathara Colliery, Bokaro
3. The Assistant Manager (Personnel), Kathara Colliery, Bokaro
4. Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner (CMPF) through Regional Commissioner, CMPF, Region-III, Ranchi --- Respondents
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner: Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate For the Resp - CCL: M/s Amit Kr. Sinha, Saumya Pandey, Advocates For the Resp - CMPF: Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate
---
05/ 04.12.2018 Surviving defect is ignored.
2. The same prayer has been made again in the present writ petition i.e. for release of provident fund amount deposited in the account of the petitioner for the years 3/77, 3/78 and 3/80 with statutory interest as was made in WPS No. 1533/2011 by the petitioner. Writ petition was disposed of by order dated 21.08.2014 with a direction upon the Project Officer, Kathara Colliery to look into his grievances in accordance with law and after due verification of his relevant records and if petitioner is found contributing in the pension fund for the said period, relevant records be forwarded to the CMPF for processing it thereafter. CMPF was also directed to process and settle the balance claim of the petitioner within a reasonable time, in accordance with law. Thereafter, petitioner pursued a Cont. Case (Civil) No. 861/2015 which was dropped by order dated 09.11.2017 taking note of the compliance shown by the CMPF.
3. In this writ petition, from the enclosed Annexure-6 being letter no. 4460 dated 29.11.2017 issued by the Assistant Manager (Personnel), Kathara Colliery to the petitioner, it is evident that there are no records to show contribution towards provident fund in the relevant year in the office of the Respondent CCL. Petitioner has also not enclosed any proof of deposits in the present writ petition, but has again raised the same cause of action which, in the opinion of the court, is not maintainable. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/