Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 577 (JHR)

Sudhan Mochi v. Central Coal Fields Limited

2020-06-08

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondents to calculate and fix the pension of the petitioner and release the same and arrears thereof in pursuance of Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 along with the statutory and penal interest. 3. The facts of the case lie in a short compass. The petitioner was appointed on 28.01.1968 and retired from service on 31.01.2006 after attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Head Security Guard from Jharkhand Colliery Charhi, G.M. office. The further case of the petitioner is that he was the member of Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1971, as such; he is eligible for pension under the provision of Coal Mines Scheme, 1998 from the appointed date. Even the deduction of 2% contribution from March 1990 till the date of the retirement in the year, 2006 were made from the salary of the petitioner towards pension scheme, as is evident from the details lying with the respondent coal-company. The further case of the petitioner is that he has filed all the necessary forms i.e. PS-3 & PS-4 for grant of pension which has been forwarded by the Personnel Manager, CCL Jharkhand Colliery on 08.05.1998 and 25.05.1998 to the authorized officer and the same has been received by the Assistant Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Region-II, Ranchi-Respondent No.6, but till date his pension claim has not been settled. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Coal-company which inter alia states that though deduction of 2% contribution from March, 1990 till the date of the retirement of the petitioner in the year, 2006 were made from the salary of the petitioner towards his pension contribution but the option form i.e. PS-1 is not found available in the office of the respondent. As such a letter has been issued to the office of respondent No.6 for verification as to whether the petitioner has exercised his option for pension under the PS-1 or not. It has been categorically stated in paragraph no. 10 of their counter-affidavit that through the petitioner has exercised the option form PS-3 and PS-4, but for becoming a member of the Scheme the petitioner had to exercise the option Form PS-1. 5. It has been categorically stated in paragraph no. 10 of their counter-affidavit that through the petitioner has exercised the option form PS-3 and PS-4, but for becoming a member of the Scheme the petitioner had to exercise the option Form PS-1. 5. A counter-affidavit has also been filed by the respondent No.-5 and submits that the pension claim in respect of the petitioner has not been submitted by the Colliery Management till now and in that respect they have issued several letters to the Colliery Management. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though he has not exercised PS-1, but admittedly the respondent-company has deducted 2% contribution from his salary as such the respondents are not justified in delaying the settlement of pension claim of the petitioner under the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998. 7. Learned counsel for the Coal-company and Regional Manager, CMPF reiterated their stand stated in their counter-affidavit. 8. The issue of exercising form under PS-1 for entitlement of the pension has already been decided in the case of Manmohan Pandey Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. Ranchi [W.P.(S) No. 6459 of 2007]. Relevant portion of the order is quoted herein below:- “Argument advanced by learned counsel for the Respondents cannot be accepted, for the simple reason, that if the petitioner had not opted for the pension scheme, as to why, 2% pension amount was being deducted from his salary? Deduction of 2% pension amount from the salary of the petitioner shall be construed to mean that the Management had decided to make the payment of the pension to the petitioner after his retirement. Therefore, the present writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to calculate and fix the pension of the petitioner within sixty days from today and to release the pension amount to the petitioner, any further delay.” 9. The aforesaid case was challenged by the Regional Commissioner Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization before this Court under its appellate Jurisdiction being L.P.A No.155 of 2015 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2016. Even a civil review application was filed against the order passed in the writ application and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. As a matter of fact, the matter went up to the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India but the respondents could not succeed. Even a civil review application was filed against the order passed in the writ application and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. As a matter of fact, the matter went up to the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India but the respondents could not succeed. In other words, the issue has already been decided with respect to exercising PS-1 vis a vis deduction of 2% contribution and the same is not res-integra. From the record, it also appears that the petitioner has filed its supplementary-affidavit wherein, he has categorically stated in paragraph 3 that during pendency of this writ application the Assistant Manager Jharkhand OC Project issued a letter to the petitioner asking him to submit the documents without insisting PS-1 and pursuant to that the petitioner has already submitted the required documents including the form PS-3 and PS-4. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, I hereby allow this writ application directing the respondent No.3-the General Manager, CCL, Jharkhand Colliery Charhi to send the necessary claim papers within a period of six weeks from today, if not sent till date to the respondent No.5-The Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Region-II, Ranchi. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 shall ensure that the grievance of the petitioner should be redressed at the earliest and his pension should be settled and disbursement should start not beyond a further period of six weeks. 11. With the aforesaid directions the instant writ application is allowed and disposed of.