Jharkhand High Court
Kanwal Krishan Malhotra vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through Its ... on 8 July, 2015
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No. 655 of 2013
----
Kanwal Krishan Malhotra ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1.Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad
2.Director Personnel, BCCL, Koyala Bhawan, Dhanbad.
3.Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner, Region-1, Dhanbad ... ... Respondents
----
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
----
For the Petitioner :Mr.M.K.Roy
For the Respondents :M/s. Prashant Vidyarthy &
Mritunjay Choudhary
----
06- 08.07.2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has raised a grievance that excess amount has been realized from him on account of delay caused in opting for pension scheme. He has been compelled to deposit an amount of Rs.1,67,417/- instead of Rs.92,645/- as his pension papers were finally sent in 2010 to CMPF Authority by the employer-BCCL. Petitioner had exercised his option to avail of CMPF on 24.4.1997.
On the contrary, it is the stand of respondent-BCCL that the petitioner was not a member of the Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme,1991. An employee, who was not a member of the said scheme of 1991 and was covered by the Provident Fund Scheme, could opt for pension under the provisions of scheme within 9 months from the date of notification and he shall be deemed to have become a member of the scheme from the date of availing the option in form PS-1. This notification was published on 19.1.2002 in the Gazette of India. Thus eligibility for claiming of pension was on and from 19.1.2002 and not any period prior thereto. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner from 1997 is not tenable. It is also the case of the respondents that claim of the petitioner has been sent after exercising his option on 25.6.2004 and received in the CMPF office on 9.7.2004 itself. It is the case of the respondent-CMPF that the petitioner was a non-optee family pension member and he has not submitted PS-I form for becoming a member of CMPF,1998. He, therefore has deposited Rs.1,67,417/- towards pension funds vide VR No.1252 dated 24.6.2004, however, this amount was not demanded by their office. 2. It is further stated that 2% pension amount for Rs.14,570/- has been deposited by BCCL vide Cheque dated 5.12.2005. It is further stated that option for becoming member of CMPF 1998 in form PS-I has been submitted vide letter no.BCCL/Pension/2010/130 dated 3rd March,2010 and pension claim has also been received vide letter no. BCCL/P&P/Fin/Pen/K. K. Malhotra/10/104 dated 9.4.2010. Thereafter, the pension claim of the petitioner was settled and Rs.3032/- per month is being paid along with arrears since May,2010. Pension has been calculated on the basis of last 10 months notional salary and reckonable period submitted by BCCL.
Facts, which have been noticed herein-above, however, do not clearly reach to any conclusion relating to date of exercise of option to avail CMPF 1998 by the petitioner, who while on one hand claims that he had exercised his option in 1997, the respondents state that he had exercised it only pursuant to the notification of 2002, whereafter his papers were sent in 2004 June. In that view of the matter the issue requires scrutiny from the relevant records maintained in the office of the competent authority, where the petitioner was employed.
The matter is, therefore, remanded to the competent authority for consideration of the petitioner's claim. The petitioner shall approach the respondent no.2, the Director Personnel, BCCL, who if he is the competent authority would examine the petitioner's claim or otherwise refer the matter to the competent authority under whom the petitioner was working at the time of his superannuation. Needless to say, during course of such determination all relevant and admissible documents/official records shall be looked into by the competent authority, who may also take into account the documents referred to by the CMPF authorities. Counsel for the petitioner submits that some revision in pension might be due on account of revision in the scale of pay, which he may also be allowed to raise before the competent authority. It would be open to the petitioner to raise such grievances as well by way of representation. Such 3. exercise be concluded within 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
This writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. ) Pandey