The provisions of the Mines Act, 1952, do not apply to officers and executives of the W.C.L., and the invocation of Rule 7.2 of the Service Rules for denial of leave encashment dues to the petitioners was upheld.

JUDGMENT

1. Writ Petition No.4104/2017 and Writ Petition No.4318/2017 are taken up for consideration together, since the point of law involved therein is common.

2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.4104/2017, at the material time, was working as a General Manger (Finance) under the Western Coalfields Limited (hereafter "the W.C.L.", for short). Disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 22nd August, 2012 on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty. In a duly constituted inquiry, the charge levelled against the petitioner was established resulting in an order of removal from service being passed. The order of removal is the subject matter of challenge in separate proceedings initiated according to law.

3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.4318/2017 is the widow of Dr. Surendraprasad Mehta (since deceased). At the material time, the deceased was holding the post of Medical Superintendent in the W.C.L. Prosecution was launched against the deceased under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter "the PC. Act", for short). The deceased stood trial before the Special (Central Bureau of Investigation) Court, Nagpur. Vide judgment and order dated 9th December, 2009, the Special Court convicted the deceased under Section 7 of the PC. Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The Special Court also convicted the deceased for offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC. Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. Upon such conviction and sentence, the deceased preferred an appeal before this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, he breathed his last. However, based on the aforesaid conviction, the deceased was dismissed from service by the W.C.L.

4. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual narrative, the claim in both the writ petitions is for release of financial benefits on account of leave encashment dues of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4104/2017 and of the deceased husband of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4318/2017.

5. On behalf of the petitioners, Mr. S.A. Pathak and Mr. M.M. Sudame, learned Advocates have referred to the provisions of Section 52(10) of the Mines Act, 1952 (hereafter "the Mines Act", for short) to contend that notwithstanding removal/dismissal from service, the petitioners are entitled to leave encashment dues. Heavy reliance has been placed on the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 26th November, 2010 in Writ Petition No.3430/2010 {Pramod s/o. Gulabchand Baid Vs. Coal India Limited and another). It has been brought to our notice that the decision in Pramod (supra) was carried to the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition, which stands dismissed by an order dated 18th April, 2011. Not only that, a curative petition was filed which also stands dismissed by an order dated 6th August, 2013. Based on the decision in Pramod (supra), learned advocates for the petitioners have urged us to extend similar relief since, according to them, the claims of the petitioners are squarely covered thereby.

6. In Pramod (supra), the petitioner was a Finance Manager, who had suffered an order of dismissal on 27th January, 2009. He had claimed leave encashment of 220 days earned leave with full pay and 219 days half pay leave after deduction of Coal Mines Provident Fund as per Section 52(8) of the Act. His request was spurned by the W.C.L. by a communication dated 30th April, 2010 on the ground that Rule 7.2 of the Coal India Service Rules (hereafter "the Service Rules", for short) creates a bar for payment of leave encashment dues to any officer whose service is terminated on disciplinary ground. The coordinate Bench, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jaswant Si