Jharkhand High Court
Sarfuddin Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors. .... ... ... on 21 July, 2023
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 836 of 2021
Sarfuddin Ansari ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... ... Opp. Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
----
18/21.07.2023 A show cause affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 on 11.04.2023, paragraph-4 of which reads as under:
"4. That in compliance of the order dated 02.02.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3301 of 2014 read with order dated 25.11.2022 passed in Civil Review No. 45 of 2022, it is stated that the order of the Hon'ble Court has been complied and the petitioner is being paid monthly pension regularly and arrears of the pension has also been paid to him vide PPO No. 1060002888 dated 18.02.2022 issued by the office of the Regional Commissioner, CMPF, Dhanbad. Further, the petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs.3,25,047/- towards gratuity and provident fund to the tune of Rs.21,66,183/- and the same has been credited. The letter has been issued by the office of Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund dated 25.03.2022."
As against this, Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, refers to supplementary affidavit dated 13.04.2023 filed on behalf of the petitioner, paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of which are reproduced hereunder:
"8. That it is stated that the petitioner has been provided with a payment advice dated 10.03.2023 for a sum of Rs.3,25,047/- under the head of gratuity calculated on the basis of basic pay payable to the petitioner in the month of July, 2009 which should have been on the basis of basic pay payable to the petitioner in October, 2019. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to difference amount of gratuity to be calculated on the basis of basic pay legally payable to him in the month of October, 2019 with interest @ 10% per annum.
9. That likewise, the petitioner has been paid the benefit of pension and CMPF calculated after 11.07.2009 instead of 11.02.1988. Therefore, difference of amount under the head of pension and CMPF on calculation of the same reckoning his service since 11.02.1988 is legally payable to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to difference amount under the head of pension and CMPF to be calculated from 11.02.1988 with interest @ 10% per annum."-2-
Thus, the contention of the petitioner is that the gratuity and CMPF have been calculated on his basic pay admissible in the month of July, 2009 during which the petitioner was dismissed from service whereas in pursuance of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 3301 of 2014 as well as Civil Review No. 45 of 2022, the petitioner is entitled for basic pay as was admissible to him in the month of October, 2019 which was his actual month of superannuation. Moreover, the petitioner is also entitled for difference of amount under the heading of pension and CMPF to be calculated from 11.02.1988 i.e. date of his appointment along with applicable interest till the date of superannuation.
Under the said circumstance, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are directed to file supplementary show cause affidavit showing the true compliance of order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3301 of 2014 and Civil Review No. 45 of 2022.
Put up this case under the heading "For Admission" on 25.08.2023.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh