Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 390 (JHR)

Puran Saw v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

2015-03-20

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2015
Order This writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying inter-alia for direction upon respondents to provide Pension as per amendment in Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 (in short 'C.M.P.S., 1998') vide G.S.R. No. 154(E) dated 05.03.2009 with statutory interest. 2. The factual matrix, as delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner was an employee of M/s C.C.L. working as a loader in Sayal 'D' colliery in the district of Hazaribagh at present Ramgarh and the petitioner was superannuated from service in the year 1998 after completion of 60 years. Although, initially the petitioner was appointed in the year 1962 and the Family Pension Rule came into existence in the year 1971, but due to ignorance the petitioner could not become a member of the Family Pension Scheme as per the said rules. But, in the year 1989 when the provision started for reforming the pension Rules for Coal Workers 2% and one Special Annual SPRA has been deducted as per the rule from the wages of the petitioner along with other employees of the Coal Industry those who were member or not of the Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, 1971. 3. The Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 has been approved on 05.03.1998 but implemented from 01.04.1994, and as per paragraph nos. 2 & 2(A) of the C.M.P.S., 1998, the petitioner is entitled for pension and may be entitled for pension but due to illiteracy he could not fill up the pension forms. On the basis of deduction of 2% and one special annual SPRA from 01.04.1989 till the retirement, the petitioner submitted application before the respondents to get the benefits of Family Pension, but, when no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2434 of 2008 before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.11.2009, annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application, with liberty to the petitioner to file writ application if further exigency so warrants and accordingly direction was made to withdraw the amount of Rs. 20,549/- from the cash section of the respondent(s) concerned. 4. 20,549/- from the cash section of the respondent(s) concerned. 4. It has further been averred in the writ application that as per the amendment in Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 vide G.S.R. No. 154(E) dated 05.03.2009 extension of further time limit for exercising option in PS-1/PS-2, for eligibility of Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 has been made vide Annexure 2. The petitioner states that he has filled up the application form on 11.12.2009, at Annexure-3 series, for payment of pension to the respondent no. 6 and the respondent no. 6 has inquired the petition of the petitioner regarding filling up of the form. Again the petitioner has filed an application on 14.12.2009, at Annexure 3 series. With the aforesaid averments, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. 5. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the Annexure 4 to the writ application is the manufactured document which would be evident from the Annexure 3 itself. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner designated as loader was a workmen of respondent-C.C.L. at Sayal 'D' Colliery under Barka Sayal colliery and retired from service from the said company on and from 14.08.1993. But, the petitioner continued in service beyond the normal period of superannuation i.e. 14.08.1993 till 02.06.1998 wrongly due to tampering and manipulation in the original service sheet. He was superannuated w.e.f. 14.08.1993 vide office order dated 02.06.1998 vide Annexure A to the counter-affidavit. It has further been submitted that gratuity amounting to Rs. 71,931/- has already been paid by a cheque bearing no. 894660 dated 08.11.2000 which the petitioner has received on 29.11.2000, as evident from the photocopy of the receipt, annexed as Annexure B to the counter-affidavit. It has also been stated that the petitioner had submitted an application for refund of 2% pension amount which was deducted from the salary bill during his service and accordingly, his refund of 2% pension bill was prepared as because the petitioner was not a member of Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and amount of Rs. 20,549/-against 2 % pension has been returned to the Area Accounts Office, Barka-Sayal by letter dated 15/20.07.2008 owing to its expiry. 20,549/-against 2 % pension has been returned to the Area Accounts Office, Barka-Sayal by letter dated 15/20.07.2008 owing to its expiry. The petitioner has also been paid LTC amount of Rs. 3568/- for the block year 1991-94 and LLTC amounting to Rs. 8112/- for the block year 1995-98 as evident from the Annexure 'E' to the counter-affidavit. So far as the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension as per amendment of the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 vide G.S.R. No. 154 (E) dated 15.03.2009 with interest is concerned it has been stated that inspite of the fact that the petitioner has knowledge that he had to fill P.S.-1 Form but he did not fill up the P.S.-1 Form. The petitioner has only sent the representation dated nil in the office of the Sayal 'D' Colliery and never turned up for the collection of the P.S.-1 Form under pension Scheme. As such due to non filing of P.S.-1 Form the petitioner is not eligible for pension under CMPS-1998. It has also been stated in the counted-affidavit that on 15.12.2009, the petitioner sent a representation claiming to become a Member of Pension Scheme at Annexure 'F' to the counter-affidavit but the representation was duly considered and the same was rejected and the order was communicated to him vide Annexure G to the counter-affidavit. 6. Heard Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 at length. 7. On conspectus of the facts, as disclosed in the writ application and the contentions made in the counter affidavit, and considering the rivalised submissions of the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in this case, mainly for following facts and reasons: (i) That there cannot be any shadow of doubt or debate that the petitioner is trying to take advantage on the basis of deduction of 2 % made from his salary inadvertently though he was not a member of the Family Pension Scheme. Furthermore, the amount of Rs. 20,549/- towards 2 % deduction has already been paid to the petitioner in pursuance to order dated 04.11.2009 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2434 of 2008. Furthermore, the amount of Rs. 20,549/- towards 2 % deduction has already been paid to the petitioner in pursuance to order dated 04.11.2009 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2434 of 2008. Since the petitioner is not a member of the Family Pension Scheme, he is not entitled for grant of Family Pension. Therefore, claim of the petitioner appears to be preposterous and untenable in the eye of law. (ii). Secondly, the relief sought for in the writ application is not allowable on the ground that the very same relief, which was agitated by the petitioner in the earlier writ application, being W.P. (S) No. 2434 of 2008, the petitioner in the present writ application has pressed for the same relief. However, the writ application being W.P. (S) No. 2434 of 2008 was dismissed with liberty to petitioner to withdraw the amount of Rs. 20,549/- from the cash section of the respondent (s) concerned. The said amount has been withdrawn by the petitioner, which has been admitted by both the parties. (iii). Although the petitioner submitted a representation in pursuance to order dated 04.11.2009 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2434 of 2008 but the petitioner never turned up before the respondents-authorities for collection of P.S.-I Form under Pension Scheme, as disclosed in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit and for non-filing of the P.S. Form, the petitioner is not eligible for pension under C.M.P.S., 1998. Moreover, the amount which was deposited towards 2 % deduction has already been withdrawn. So, at this distance of time, the claim of the petitioner is not tenable in the eye of law. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and rivalised submissions, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of any merit.