Jharkhand High Court
Bal Kishore Ram vs Central Coalfields Limited on 8 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 249
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.3693 of 2017
---
Bal Kishore Ram, son of late Tulsi Ram, resident of Kismati Niwas, Lalu Khatal Road, Sambhu Vihar, PO and PS Bariyatu, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand .... Petitioner
--Vs.--
1.Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman cum Managing Director, at Darbhanga House, PO Darbhanga House, PS Kotwali, Ranchi
2.The General Manager (P&IR), Central Coal Fields Limited, At Darbhanga House, PO Darbhanga House, PS Kotwali, Ranchi
3.The General Manager (Pension), Central Coalfields Limited, at Darbhanga House, PO Darbhanga House, PS Kotwali, District Ranchi
4.The General Manager, Central Coal Fields Limited, B. & K Area, At Kargali, PO and PS Berma, Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand
5.The Project Officer, Kargali Washery, Central Coal Fields Limited, at Kargali, PO and PS Berma, Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand
6.The Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Region-III, RIADA Building, Station Road, PO and PS Namkum, Dist. Ranchi ..... Respondents
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhijit Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent-CCL : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate For the Respondent-CMPF : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate
----
Order No. 8/ Dated : 08th June, 2020 Heard Mr. Abhijit Kr. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL and Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-CMPF.
This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have 2 complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondent no.6 to re-calculate the pension of the petitioner and pay the same with arrears. The further prayer is made to make payment of entire earned and sick leave of the petitioner.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has rendered 38 years of service. He further submits that the regular deduction in pension account was made while his pension is being paid on the basis of 30 years of service. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was regularized in service in the year 1973 as Mazdoor category-I in Kargali Washeries. He further submitted that the petitioner was further promoted in the grade of Lower Division Clerk and was allotted the post of Pay Clerk cum Cashier vide letter dated 10.01.1977. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Cashier and Chief Cashier. The petitioner was retired from the service on 30.09.2011. He submits that the petitioner has served 38 years but for pension only 30 years of service has been taken into consideration. The petitioner has received the CMPF after his retirement. He further submits that the petitioner has also filed a representation before the respondent-CCL as well as respondent no.6- CMPF.
Mr. Amit Kumar Das, and Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, the learned counsels appearing for the respondent-CCL and CMPF respectively are jointly submitting that if the petitioner will approach the authority by way of filing a fresh representation, the authority will consider the claim of the petitioner and if found entitled for any further monetary benefit, the same will be released in accordance with law.
In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the petitioner is directed to move before the respondent no.2 and 3 of the respondent-CCL for the grievance of payment of earned leave, sick leave, etc. The petitioner is further directed to move before the respondent no.6 for his grievance relating to CMPF amount. The petitioner is directed to move before the 3 aforesaid respondents within four weeks from today.
If such a representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner and will pass a reasoned speaking order within six weeks thereafter. It goes without saying that if the respondents come to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for further monetary relief, the same shall be released in favour of the petitioner within further six weeks thereafter.
With the above observation and direction, the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3693 of 2017 stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/,