Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Petitioner joined the services on 08.04.1975 as Graduate Engineer Training, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad. In the month of February, 2007. Petitioner was promoted as General Manager of BCCL on 08.05.2007. He was transferred and joined in Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi on the post of General Manager, Washery, Construction Department, Ranchi. It is the case of the petitioner that he was superannuated on 31.12.2011 from the post of General Manager, Washery Construction and Washery Division, Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi. The petitioner, after his retirement, received the entire retiral benefits but the benefits of PF amounting to one month for the year 1981 and provident fund for the five months for the year 2004 was not extended to him on the ground that the contribution details of that period has not been provided by the Colliery Management to the Coal Mines Provident Fund (for short "CMPF"). The petitioner represented before the respondent-authorities on several occasions for giving the benefits of the aforesaid period but no heed was paid to such representation and though six long years have passed but nothing has been done and neither the amount has been given to the and as such, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court by preferring this writ petition.

4. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel strenuously urges that respondent-authorities have not paid any heed to the genuine grievances of the petitioner. A retired person has been running from pillar to post for getting his admitted dues but the same has not been extended to him illegally and arbitrarily on various grounds, which are not tenable in the eyes of law.

5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the respondent-CMPF submits that in absence of any contributory deposit details of the said period, CMPF is not in a position to pay the said amount.

6. Mr. Kaustav Panda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent BCCL submits that already we have sent the entire details to the CMPF. In support of his contention, learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards para-14, 15, 19 and 20. Para-20 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, is reproduced herein below:-

"It is stated that petitioner's provident fund contribution was sent to the CMPF Office through annual VV statement by Moondih and through supplementary VV statement by Dugdha, which has also been annexed as Annexure-'C' to this counter- affidavit, which would reflect the place of tenure of his post on the respective place of posting."

7. However, learned counsel appearing for CMPF controverts the statements made in the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and submits that the VV Statement sent by the management to the CMPF are only deduction details of the petitioner but the deposit details have not yet been received by the CMPF and in this regard, several letters have been written to the CCL as well as BCCL.

8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. It is a glaring example in which a retired employee has been made to run from pillar to post at the hands of the CCL and BCCL, the subsidiaries of the Coal India Ltd. Though the employee retired in the year 2011, yet the benefits of provident fund have not been extended to him till 2017. The Officials of the CCL and BCCL are writing letters to the CMPF that they have already deposited the amount but on the other hand, it has been controverted by the CMPF that they have not received such amount. The respondents CCL and BCCL are in habits of writing letters but they are not interested in making payment of the legally due amounts of its employees. Here in this case, the petitioner is interested to get his admissible due and not interested with the writing of letters. The writing of letters are not the payments done to the petitioner.