Jharkhand High Court
Most. Barki Devi vs Central Coalfields Ltd. Through Its ... on 27 February, 2024
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 2988 of 2023
----------
Most. Barki Devi .......... Petitioner
Versus
1. Central Coalfields Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Ranchi.
2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi.
3. The General Manager (Pension), Central Coalfield Ltd., Ranchi.
4. General Manager Argadda Area, Central Coalfield Ltd., Argadda, Hazaribagh.
5. The Project Officer, Giddi 'A' Central Coalfield Ltd., Hazaribagh.
6. The Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Region- I, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the Resp. : Mr. Sushavan Bhowmik, Advocate
Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, Advocate
----------
04/ 27.02.2024 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to make payment of death-cum-retiral dues of her late husband.
3. It is the case of petitioner that her husband namely late Babu Manjhi was appointed as Breakma at Giddi 'A' area of respondent-CCL and subsequently, died in harness on 06.07.1997. After death of her husband, the son of the petitioner namely, Laxman Manjhi had been appointed on compassionate ground and though some of dues was paid to the petitioner but it is the case of petitioner that till date entire death-cum-retiral benefits has not been paid to her. Though the petitioner has approached the respondents ventilating her grievances but till date her grievances has not been redressed.
Hence, she has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.
4. Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that after death of her husband which is admitted by the respondents, petitioner is entitled for death-cum-retiral benefits including family pension, 2 gratuity and amount of CMPF. Learned counsel further argues that the respondent-CMPF has already extended the benefits of CMPF in the year 2012 but still the benefits of family pension and gratuity has not yet been extended to her. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner is entitled for family pension in view of Gazette Notification of the year 2009, that benefit should also be extended to her in accordance with law.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-CCL submits that the entire benefits for which the petitioner is entitled for shall be extended to him within a specific period as directed by this Court.
6. Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the respondent-CMPF submits that on the part of respondent-CMPF the benefits have already been extended. However, as far as pensionery benefits are concerned since notification itself was issued in the year 2009 and before that since petitioner was not the member of the Scheme there was no occasion to grant the said benefits. It has been further argued that for the first time in the year 2011, the respondents asked for relevant documents mentioning the amount to be deposited as per the Scheme and thereafter, in the years 2013 and 2023 calculations were made and sent to the Management for recommendation and direction was given to the petitioner for depositing the amount for consideration of her case for pensionery benefits.
7. Having heard the rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the view that there is no quarrel to the fact that petitioner is entitled for the death-cum-retiral dues as well as family pension and gratuity. The husband of the petitioner died in the year 1997 and almost 27 years have passed but the benefits has not yet been extended by the respondent-CCL. Not only that family pension has also not been fixed and started as yet on the ground that prior to 2009, husband of the petitioner was not a member under the Pensionery Scheme. The Scheme was floated in the year 1998 and the petitioner became entitled for the same only after Gazette Notification of the year 2009.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-CMPF tries to impress this Court that they have written letters annexing calculation for depositing amount to 3 the petitioner but in want of the same, the benefits could not have been extended.
9. In view of fair submissions of learned counsel for the respondent- CMPF, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to deposit the amount as per the 1st recommendation of the respondent-CMPF made in the year 2011. The respondents can charge interest as per the Rules but petitioner cannot be made liable for depositing original amount with compound interest. Since Rule permits for interest, the respondent-CMPF shall charge simple interest since a widow has approached this Court for getting pensionery benefits of her deceased husband.
10. Admittedly, pensionery benefits are not bounty to be given as per the sweet-will of the respondents. It is the right of an employee to get the same. The stand of the respondent-CMPF for charging compound interest is not at all appreciated by this Court.
11. Under such circumstances, the respondents are directed to pay the amount of gratuity along with statutory interest @ 6% per annum from the date it has fallen due till actual payment and also fix the family pension of petitioner. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) kunal/-