Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 637 (JHR)

Shardha Nand Singh v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

2009-04-28

AJIT KUMAR SINHA

body2009
Order The present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:- (a) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ commanding upon the respondents to specially the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to take appropriate steps for proper fixation of pension as per company's rate. (b) For issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding upon the respondents specially the respondent nos. 1 to 5 to give explanation as to why Rs. 53,000/- was deducted from the retiral dues of the petitioner against the company's quarter while during whose of his service he was never allotted any quarter by the Management. (c) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding upon the respondents to give reason as to under what circumstances P.F. contribution amount of 33 months w.e.f. 1.4.80 to 31.12.82 is upheld up till now of the petitioner. (d) For issuance of an appropriate direction commanding upon the respondents to make the following retiral dues of the petitioner:- (i) Difference of pension amount at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. arising out of less payment due to wrong fixation. (ii) Rs. 53,000/- wrongly deducted in the name of Company's quarter. (iii) P.F. contribution .amount of 33 months w.e.f. 1.4.80 to 31.12.82. (iv) Interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the above amount alongwith compensation and exculpatory cost. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that he is not pressing his first prayer to the writ petition with regard to proper fixation of pension. However, he presses other two prayers made in paras '(b)' and '(c)'. 3. The prayer '(b)' relates to deduction of an amount of Rs. 53,000/- for retaining the company's quarter which is not allotted to the petitioner. 4. As regards the prayer '(c)' the learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out at para-10 of the counter affidavit which is quoted as under:- "That the final C.MP.F. Amount was calculated as per the contribution of he petitioner in which the petitioner had contributed since C.P.E. 3/83. Hence, the allegation of the petitioner that the petitioner has not been paid the P.F. amount from 1.4.1980 to 31.12.82 is not correct. Hence, the allegation of the petitioner that the petitioner has not been paid the P.F. amount from 1.4.1980 to 31.12.82 is not correct. As stated herein above that there was no contribution of the petitioner from 1.4.80 till 31.3.81 and the petitioner has been paid the P.F. amount for the period from 1.4.80 till 31.12.82." 5. It has been specifically asserted that there was no contribution from the sides of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.1980 to 31.3.1981. However, the petitioner disputes this fact in its rejoinder to the effect that he is entitled for the Provident Fund for 33 months starting from 1.4.1980 to 31.12.1982. 6. In the instant case the prayer '(b)' relates to deduction of Rs. 53,000/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner against the company's quarter which he was illegally holding over. 7. I am of the considered view that the petitioner was liable to pay the rent for the quarter which he was illegally holding. However in case if the rent has been charged based on the penal rent the same should be reduced to the' actual rent payable by the employee and the difference of the amount should be calculated and refunded. 8. As regard the last prayer '(c)' it is specifically submitted by the respondent that the petitioner had made no contribution of the P.F. amount for the period 1.4.1980 till 31.12.1982 and thus he was not legally entitled to claim the P.F. contribution amount for the aforesaid period of 33 months. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case this writ petition is accordingly dismissed except that of clarification in prayer '(b)' as stated herein-above.