Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1267 (JHR)

Yogendra Jha v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited

2009-09-10

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT : Heard Shri A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajan Raj, learned counsel for the respondent BCCL and Shri Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent CMPF. 2. The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay him the arrears of pension for the period from 1.4.1998 to 30.9.2003. 3. The petitioner was employed in Godhar Colliery, Kusunda Area under the respondent BCCL and had retired from there on 31.12.1997. 4. After his retirement, a scheme was floated namely, the Coal Mines Pension Scheme which was implemented with effect from 1.4.1998, though was made applicable to all those persons who had retired on or after 1.4.1994. 5. Upon implementation of the scheme, the petitioner submitted his application in the requisite format and the respondent authorities, after examining all the particulars contained therein and on being satisfied that the petitioner was eligible and entitled for pension under the new scheme, directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 59,998/-by way of his contribution @2% of his salary calculated from 1.4.1989. The petitioner, in compliance with the direction, deposited the demanded amount on 5.8.2003 i.e. less than 15 days from the date of the letter. By a subsequent communication dated 19.4.2006, a further amount of Rs. 98,140/-was demanded from the petitioner. In compliance thereto, the petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount with the respondent employer on 11.5.2006. Thus, the petitioner had deposited the entire demanded amount by way of his contribution, and upon such deposit being made by him, he was entitled to arrears of pension from the date when it fell due to him. 6. Further contention of the petitioner is that when in spite of such deposit made by him, he had sought information as to the reason for the delay in releasing the pension, he was surprised on being informed that the amount of deposit which he had made with the respondent BCCL way back on 5.8.2003, was not forwarded by the BCCL to the respondent CMPF authorities promptly and likewise, a further sum of Rs. 19,232/-which was deducted from his salary towards the provident fund contribution during the period of his service, was also not forwarded to the CMPF authorities. 19,232/-which was deducted from his salary towards the provident fund contribution during the period of his service, was also not forwarded to the CMPF authorities. Consequently, payment of the petitioner’s arrears of pension has been withheld since long and as such, the petitioner is not only entitled for payment of arrears of pension, but also interest thereon for the delayed payment. 7. In their counter-affidavit, the respondent BCCL has acknowledged that the payment as sought by the petitioner, was in fact received in the office of the BCCL in the month of September 2003, but for some reason, it could not be promptly forwarded to the office of the CMPF. 8. In the counter-affidavit of the respondent CMPF, it has been affirmed that though, the petitioner had deposited the amount required by him, by August 2003, but the same was not forwarded by his employer BCCL to the CMPF authorities for more than 5 years, as such, neither the amount of pension payable to the petitioner, nor arrears as claimed by him, could be paid to him. It is pointed out that in paragraph-8 of the counter-affidavit of the respondent CMPF that on a detailed calculation as made on 8.1.2008, a sum of Rs. 1,23,975/-, together with interest, was assessed as payable to the petitioner and out of which, the respondent BCCL had deposited only Rs. 79,231/-till 8.1.2008, whereas the remaining amount of Rs. 63,977 is yet to be received from the respondent BCCL. It is only after receipt of the full amount, that the petitioner’s arrears of pension as claimed by him, can be assessed and released for payment. 9. From the above submissions, it is apparent that the petitioner had deposited the amount, which was to be paid by him by way of his contribution, promptly as and when demanded by the respondent BCCL. It also appears that though the employer BCCL had received the amount of contribution from the petitioner, but they did not forward the same to the CMPF authorities, thereby causing undue delay. For this the petitioner cannot be put to fault. 10. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the concerned authorities of the respondent CMPF shall make recalculation of the final amount payable till date, by adding the amount of interest for the delayed payment on Rs. For this the petitioner cannot be put to fault. 10. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the concerned authorities of the respondent CMPF shall make recalculation of the final amount payable till date, by adding the amount of interest for the delayed payment on Rs. 63,977/-and intimate the concerned authorities of the respondent BCCL the amount which they are supposed to deposit in the account of the petitioner. The respondent BCCL shall, within 15 days from the date of information furnished by the respondent CMPF, deposit the specified amount with the respondent CMPF authorities and, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the payable amount from the respondent BCCL, the CMPF authorities shall assess the arrears of pension payable to the petitioner and shall release the same to the petitioner. Furthermore, considering the fact that the delay in releasing payment of arrears of pension to the petitioner has occasioned on account of the lapses of the respondent BCCL, the concerned authorities of the respondent BCCL shall pay interest on the delayed payment @ 5% per annum calculated from the date when the petitioner had deposited the demanded amount of his contribution, till final payment. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent BCCL and the respondent CMPF.