Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6.General Manager, Kathara Project, Central Coalfields Limited, PO- Kathara, PS-Petarwar, District-Bokaro

7.Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Office at-CMPF, Region-I, RIADA Building, Namkum, PO and PS-Namkum, District-Ranchi ...... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.CCL :- Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, Advocate For the Resp.CMPF : Ms. Prity Sinha, Advocate

----

07/14.10.2020 Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-CCL and Ms. Prity Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CMPF.

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

7. The respondents would now take a decision for claim of the compassionate appointment and also for any other outstanding claim of death-cum-retirement benefits. As per the respondents, the documents relating to CMPF has been forwarded to the CMPF authorities, who are also represented through their counsel. He, however, submits that such documents have not yet been received in CMPF office by the time of filing of their counter affidavit. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-CCL that the mother of the employee namely Jitani Devi was nominated in Form-A under the CMPF. It is also pointed out that the Management was inclined to deposit the gratuity amount to the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as no nomination of the ex-employee was on record."

7. He further relied in the case of "Kumari Asha Chauhan v. Central Coalfields Limited & Ors." in L.P.A. No.423 of 2017 which was disposed of by order dated 27.06.2018. He submits that in the L.P.A judgment the Division Bench has also considered the case of "Santosh Kumar Dubey" and the order of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench whereby the learned has rejected the claim of the petitioner.

8. Ms. Prity Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-CMPF submits that the CMPF has not received any request from the respondent-CCL and in view of the provisions only after such request the CMPF can proceed further.