Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Sabita Mazumdar (Nee Das) vs Central Coal Fields Limited & Ors on 1 February, 2023
01.02.2023 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DL-31 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
(PP) APPELLATE SIDE
Ct.21
WPA 446 of 2023
Smt. Sabita Mazumdar (nee Das)
Vs.
Central Coal Fields Limited & Ors.
Mr. Soumava Mukherjee
....for the petitioner.
Mr. Puspal Chakraborty,
Mr. Tirthankar Nandi
....for the respondents.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that primarily on two grounds, the impugned order dated December 23, 2015 has been challenged by the writ petitioner. By the impugned order, the writ petitioner has been held to be initially appointed at Semra Colliery of Hazaribagh on January 25, 1974 in the capacity of Lower Division Clerk (LDC)/Typist. Semra Colliery was not a NCDC mine. Therefore, the variable dearness allowance (VDA) granted to the petitioner was for 26 days instead of 30 days.
It is recorded in the Impugned Order that the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) was applicable with effect from January 1, 1975 in the case of the petitioner also. Pursuant to the said NCWA, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.378/-. One Uday Bhattacharya who was working as a senior clerk of 2 the Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) was entitled to 30 days of VDA since his appointment. There was no deprivation of benefits meted out to the petitioner. It was also held by the Impugned order that the revised scale of pay that the petitioner was eligible for was based on 26 days VDA and not to 30 days VDA that the NCDC mine staff were entitled to. Since the Semra Colliery was not a NCDC mine, the petitioner could not claim the benefits of 30 days VDA.
By an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W. P. 8736 (W) of 2005 on September 22, 2015, the Coordinate Bench held that the authorities have sought to make a distinction against the petitioner on a ground on which such distinction could not be made. It appears that again a distinction was sought to be made between the VDA of 30 days payable to NCDC employees as opposed to VDA of 26 days payable to the other employees in the Impugned order.
Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that necessary instructions were required to be taken in the matter.
Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and the materials placed on record, this Court feels that justice will be sub-served by directing the respondent no.3/the Director (Personnel), CCL to file 3 a report on affidavit explaining how the conclusion that the petitioner was initially appointed at Semra Colliery was arrived at, taking into consideration Clauses 5 and 9 of the appointment letter dated January 25, 1974 annexed at pages 31 and 32 of the writ petition.
Furthermore, it has to be explained why a distinction has been sought to be made between the employees entitled to 30 days of VDA as opposed to 26 days of VDA after the said issue was settled by an order of the Coordinate Bench dated September 22, 2015. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred from the said order and the said order has attained finality.
Let such report on affidavit be filed by February 20, 2023. Exception, if any, by March 1, 2023.
Let the matter appear for further consideration under the same heading "Motion" on March 6, 2023.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Hon'ble Court.
(Lapita Banerji, J.)