Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1508 (JHR)

Arun Kumar Das v. Hindustan Copper Ltd.

2009-11-27

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay him the difference amount of voluntary retirement of two years to the extent of Rs. 1,24,543/-and also the difference amount of leave and gratuity to the extent of Rs. 2,25,800/-on the basis of the petitioner's claim that his retirement age has to be treated as 60 years and not 58 years. 3. The petitioner was an employee of the Hindustan Copper Limited. He obtained voluntary retirement under the scheme floated by his employer in December, 2002 whereafter he was paid his entire retiral and other monetary benefits to which he was entitled. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the instant writ application in July, 2005 claiming that as per the original terms and conditions of his service, his retirement age was fixed at 60 years and as such, even though the petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement under the scheme floated by the employer, he was entitled to the monetary benefits till he attains the age of retirement of 60 years. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying and disputing the entire claim of the petitioner. 5. It is sought to be explained that though initially the service conditions of the petitioner stipulated the age of retirement at 60 years but subsequently by a notification dated 29.09.2001, pursuant to the amendment brought in the N.M.D.C. Service Regulations, the age of retirement has been reduced from 60 years to 58 years and this was notified adequately to all the employees including the petitioner even prior to the date of his opting for voluntary retirement. It is contended that the petitioner cannot therefore argue that the age of retirement was 60 years and not 58 years. 6. As it appears from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner had obtained his voluntary retirement in December, 2002 and prior to the date of his voluntary retirement, he was informed about the revised date of retirement as per the amended clause of the Service Rules. Considering the above facts, it appears that the petitioner is labouring under some misconceived notion that he is entitled to certain monetary benefits on account of his retirement age. 7. Considering the above facts, it appears that the petitioner is labouring under some misconceived notion that he is entitled to certain monetary benefits on account of his retirement age. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was paid certain amounts under the head of retiral benefits, but there appears some wrong calculations leading to a lesser amount being paid to the petitioner than what he actually entitled even on the basis of the claim that the retirement age is 58 years. 8. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the concerned authorities of the respondents including the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, if he has still any further grievance regarding less payment of any dues to which he was legitimately entitled. The respondents shall consider and decide upon his claim within two months of the date of receipt of the representation. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents.