Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 319 (JHR)

Kashiran v. CMD, Central Coalfield Ltd. , Ranchi

2014-03-03

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
ORDER This letters patent appeal is preferred against the order dated 27.09.2013 dismissing the W.P.(S) No. 2932 of 2012 in and by which the learned Single Judge held that the cause of action relates to the year 1971 and that the appellant has approached this Court nearly after 42 years of the said cause of action and the writ petition is grossly barred by delay and latches. 2. The brief facts of this appeal is that, the appellant's husband was appointed on daily rated weekly paid staff on 04.01.1918 on the post of Fitter at Giridih Colliery, Beniadih, Giridih and in course his service was regularised on 01.01.1947 and retired on 01.07.1967. The National Coal Development Corporation Ltd. had issued a letter no. PD/CivilPension/72/13 dated 23.01.1975 wherein it is stated that an employee who were employed as daily rated workers prior to 01.10.1944 (in case of Argada Deulbera Collieries) and prior to 01.06.1964 (in case of the remaining state collieries) be governed by Civil Rules and as such pensionary and other benefits will be paid in accordance with the Civil Rules. 3. It is the case of the appellant that after retirement, her husband made several representation requesting for payment of retiral dues and pension. The husband of the appellant died on 05.12.1971 leaving the appellant as a legal heir. After the death of her husband, the appellant filed the form of application of family pension scheme to the respondent. The Superintending Engineer (B & M) Giridih vide his letter dated 28.08.1992 requested the Deputy Personnel Manager to consider and examine the family pension of the appellant. The Senior Finance Officer (Estb.) vide a letter dated 22.08.2009 to the Project Manager, Giridih Colliery, Giridih stated that the case of the appellant be considered after proper verification of the service sheet and eligibility of the pensioner/family pensioner. Vide a office order no. 654046 dated 01.06.1991 by the Deputy Personnel Manager, CCL, Giridih the exgratia amount of Rs. 150/ per month for life and D.A. at the rate of Rs. 6/ per month w.e.f. 01.07.1986, at the rate of Rs. 12/ per month w.e.f. 01.01.1987, at the rate of Rs. 20/ per month w.e.f. 01.07.1987, at the rate of Rs. 27/ per month w.e.f. 01.01.1988, at the rate of Rs. 35/ per month w.e.f. 01.07.1988, at the rate of Rs. 44/ per month w.e.f. 01.01.1989, at the rate of Rs. 6/ per month w.e.f. 01.07.1986, at the rate of Rs. 12/ per month w.e.f. 01.01.1987, at the rate of Rs. 20/ per month w.e.f. 01.07.1987, at the rate of Rs. 27/ per month w.e.f. 01.01.1988, at the rate of Rs. 35/ per month w.e.f. 01.07.1988, at the rate of Rs. 44/ per month w.e.f. 01.01.1989, at the rate of Rs. 51 per month w.e.f. 01.07.1989, at the rate of 57/ per month w.e.f. 01.01.1990 and at the rate of Rs. 65/ per month w.e.f. 01.07.1990 was issued to the appellant. It is not in dispute that the appellant has received the exgratia payment from time to time made to her. According to the appellant, she received the exgratia payment only under protest and without prejudice of her right to make a claim of family pension as per Civil Services Rules. 4. After issuing a pleader notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Deputy Personnel Manager, CCL, the appellant filed the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2932 of 2012 and the same was dismissed on 27.09.2013 holding that the writ petition suffers from delay and latches. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that inspite of repeated representations made for payment of retiral dues and pension, the same was not considered. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant is an aged illeterate lady and approached the Court in the year 2012 for the aforesaid relief of family pension and retiral dues and therefore, the learned Single Judge has not right in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches. 6. We have heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Kaustav Panda, the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. According to the respondents, the husband of the appellant was a member of State Railway Provident Fund (in short S.R.P.F.) under A/c No. R/1139. On final settlement of S.R.P.F., the appellant's husband late Ali Bux Mian was paid his special contribution to S.R.P.F. As per State Railway Provident Fund Rules. In 1957, the Railway Board introduced pension scheme vide letter no. F (E)/50/RTI/6 dated 16.11.1957 and the family pension scheme was introduced by the Railway Board vide no. F(P) 63/PNI/40 dated 02.01.1964. The aforesaid schemes were adopted by NCDC vide letter no. 224/NCDC/58/Pt.1 dated 29.04.1968. In 1957, the Railway Board introduced pension scheme vide letter no. F (E)/50/RTI/6 dated 16.11.1957 and the family pension scheme was introduced by the Railway Board vide no. F(P) 63/PNI/40 dated 02.01.1964. The aforesaid schemes were adopted by NCDC vide letter no. 224/NCDC/58/Pt.1 dated 29.04.1968. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that no paper is available to show that late Ali Bux Mian opted for Railway Pension and Family Pension Scheme though he expired in December, 1971 i.e., more than 3 and ½ years after adoption of pension and family pension schemes by NCDC and in such circumstances, the claim of the family pension of the wife of late Ali Bux Mian cannot be accepted. 8. As pointed out by the learned Single Judge, the cause of action relates to the year 1971 on death of the husband of the appellant. The records are no longer available in the respondent department. At this stage, after almost 42 years of the said cause of action, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 9. Accordingly, this Letter Patent Appeal is dismissed.