Jharkhand High Court
Sidheshwar Singh vs A K Singh Regional Commissioner Coal ... on 16 June, 2017
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont.(Civil) Case No. 337 of 2015
Sidheshwar Singh ....... Petitioner
Vrs.
1. A.K.Singh, Regional Commissioner, CMPF, Dhanbad
2. Amrit Acharya, Commissioner, CMPF, Dhanbad
3. Arsad Raja, Assistant Commissioner, CMPF, Dhanbad
4. The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Parties
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner : M/s Ashok Kr. Sinha (2)
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy (CMPF)
13/16.06.2017Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties, officials of the C.M.P.F.
2. The operative portion of the order dated 25.6.2015 passed in W.P.S. No. 2470 of 2008 is as under:-
"In the wake of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the stand of the respondents does not appeal to reason. The conduct of the respondents- employer and the CMPF in making deductions from the salary of the petitioner for the period of almost 26 years and thereafter payment of Pension to the petitioner after his retirement in 2003 till the year 2007 itself indicates that the petitioner was treated to be member of the Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme 1971 and also deemed to have continued under the CMPS 1998. In the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent CMPF should process the admissible claim of the petitioner on account of the CMPS 1998 for the payment of pension to the petitioner in accordance with law.
Let such exercise be conducted within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Needless to say, the petitioner shall co-operate in the matter. If any amount received earlier by him is to be refunded by him, he should deposit the amount specified by the CMPF in order to process his claim and make payment of pension.
Accordingly, impugned order dated 10.1.2008 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms."
3. The opposite parties CMPF have in their second supplementary show cause stated that CMPF refund of Rs.7,26,808/- has been settled and paid in August, 2005 which includes CMPF contribution ( member share and employer share) and Family Pension Contribution ( member share and employer share) along with upto date interest up to the time of refund as the member was non-optee of CMFPS 1971. That due to mistake petitioner's pension claim was settled in the year 2007 and an amount of Rs. 78,292/- (including arrear amounting to Rs. 68,080/- for the period 01.01.2004 to 30.04.2007 and monthly pension @ Rs.1702/- for the period 01.05.2007 to 30.10.2007) was wrongly paid to the member. The same is also to be refunded by him. They had raised the demand of Rs. 2,51,441/- up to July,2016. Opposite parties thereafter furnished the break up of the shares of the -2- petitioner towards family pension contribution and employer contribution as Annexure-E and E/1.
4. Thereafter petitioner contested the stand of the opposite parties through reply. Learned counsel for the petitioner took stand that petitioner was treated to be the member of CMPS 1971 and deemed to have continued under the CMPS 1998. Therefore according to the petitioner he was not required to make any contribution as a new member being the old member.
5. While adjourning the matter for further 3 weeks on 07.04.2017, petitioner was also directed to co-operate as per the order passed in the writ petition. Petitioner has appeared thereafter before the officials of the CMPF/ opposite parties. Opposite Parties in their latest affidavit have revised the demand to Rs. 1,97,120/- up to April 2017. Petitioner however shows his inability to deposit the amount demanded by CMPF for starting his pension.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submission that petitioner should be treated as member of CMFPS 1971 as per the observation made in the order under offence itself. Demand of deposit is therefore unjustified.
7. As per the order quoted herein above, after recording that the CMPF authorities had made deductions from the salary of the petitioner for almost 26 years and and also made payment of Pension to the petitioner after his retirement in 2003 till the year 2007, this Court has observed that petitioner was deemed to have continued under the CMPS 1998. In the aforesaid circumstances, while directing the Respondent CMPF to process the admissible claim of the petitioner on account of the CMPS 1998 for payment of pension in accordance with law, it was further observed that petitioner shall co-operate in the matter and if any amount has been received earlier by him, the same shall be refunded in order to process his claim and make payment of pension. The observation by this Court in the writ petition was coupled with certain riders. It cannot be gainsaid that in order to process such claim of pension, Statutory authorities are required to act in accordance with law. It is therefore clear that reciprocal act were required to be performed on the part of CMPF authorities as well as petitioner so that petitioner could avail of the benefit CMPS 1998. Petitioner seems to have reservation about the computation of the fresh demand of Rs. 1,97,120/-.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have tried to explain it in the light of the provisions of clause 3 and 4 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund -3- Scheme 1998.
9. Be that as it may, in the state of aforesaid facts, it can't be said that opposite parties are in deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of the Court when compliance thereof also involved interpretation of the direction of this Court. However in order to ensure quietus to the entire controversy, it is observed that if the petitioner deposits fresh demand notice of Rs. 1,97,120/- (break up of which is to be supplied by the CMPF authorities within a period of 3 weeks), the Opposite Parties CMPF shall start disbursement of pension to the petitioner. Liberty is reserved with the petitioner, if not satisfied with the action of the opposite parties to raise his grievance in an appropriate forum.
10. Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of and proceedings are dropped.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A.Mohanty