IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Madan Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Coal, New Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 662 of 2016
Decided On : 31-08-2023
Coal Mines Labour Welfare Fund (Repeal) Act, 1986 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Payment of gratuity - Length of service - Pension - Writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon respondents to pay pension to petitioner by assessing same @ 50% of his last drawn basic pay with applicable dearness allowance as well as gratuity amount assessed on full length of service – Held, Claim of petitioner is that gratuity amount paid by central government for rendering service and gratuity amount paid by respondent for rendering service were received by him under protest, he however failed to challenge payment of said gratuity amount within a reasonable period before Assistant Labour Commissioner i.e., competent authority under Act, 1972 - Even if it is assumed that the petitioner is a similarly situated person, no relief can be granted to him by this Court in view of the fact that even after passing of the said orders, the petitioner was in deep slumber for about 15 years and has filed the present writ petition claiming that he was entitled to gratuity amount - So far as his claim for fixation of pension @ 50% of last drawn basic pay with applicable D.A. is concerned, said claim also cannot be entertained by this Court on ground of inordinate delay and latches - Petitioner is not entitled to any relief from court under extraordinary equitable writ jurisdiction - Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.02.1998 by assessing the same @ 50% of his last drawn basic pay with applicable dearness allowance as well as gratuity amount assessed on full length of service i.e. 33 years 5 months and 13 days along with compound interest @ 18% on the arrears from the date it became due in terms with applicable rules.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was originally an employee of Central Government working under the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization (in short “CMLWO”) from 18.08.1964 to 30.09.1986 and after merger of CMLWO in Coal India Limited (CIL) on 01.10.1986, he became the employee of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL). The petitioner while working as Executive Engineer (Civil) in the office of General Manager, Western Jharia Area, Moonidih, Dhanbad superannuated on 31.01.1998 after attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner was paid gratuity amounting to Rs.23,100/- by CMLWO, Ministry of Coal, Government of India for the period of service rendered by him from 18.08.1986 to 30.09.1986 whereas he was paid gratuity amounting to Rs.64,147/- by the BCCL for the period of service rendered by him from 01.10.1986 to 31.01.1998 (total Rs.87,247/-) which was received by him under protest.
3. It is also submitted that vide office memorandum dated 25.09.1989 issued by the General Manager (P), CIL, Calcutta, the maximum ceiling limit of gratuity was fixed as Rs.1,00,000/- which was subsequently revised vide office memorandum dated 21.10.1997 issued by the Director (P&IR), CIL, Calcutta providing maximum ceiling limit of gratuity from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/- to executive cadre employees of CIL and its subsidiary companies. Thus, the petitioner is also entitled to be paid the gratuity amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.
4. It is further submitted that similarly situated persons had filed applications before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short, “the Act, 1972”) for payment of gratuity assessed on full length of service and vide orders dated 26.05.1997 and 25.02.2000 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad-IV and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad-II respectively, the respondent-BCCL was directed to pay gratuity amount to the concerned persons taking into consideration their full length of service and the said orders were complied by the concerned respondent. Similar grievances were raised by the concerned employees before the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) as well as Calcutta High Court claiming fixation of pension @ 50% of the last drawn basic pay along with applicable D.A. and in terms with orders dated 13.09.1994 and 30.11.1998 passed by the aforesaid High Courts respectively, pension @ 50% of last drawn basic pay was allowed but without D.A. Thereafter, the grievance with respect to D.A. on pension was agitated before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide S.L.P(Civil) No. 3617/2000 in which relief was extended to the concerned employees with respect to D.A. on pension.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per letter dated 07.08.2001 issued by the Sr. Accounts Officer, Regional Pay and Accounts Office (Coal), Dhanbad, pension of Rs.693/- per month w.e.f. 01.10.1986/Rs.2,117/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.1996 is being paid to the petitioner since 01.02.1998 in place of Rs.7,798/- per month. The petitioner filed representations dated 12.03.2001, 03.12.2002, 21.01.2011 and 24.07.2015 before the concerned authorities of BCCL, Ministry of Coal, Government of India as well as before the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner, Dhanbad on the said issue along with all relevant documents, circulars and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court but even after more than 15 years, no action has yet been taken by them.
6. It is also submitted that the merger clause provided under Coal Mines Lab
PEPSU Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director & Another Vs. S.K. Sharma & Others
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu
State of Orissa & Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty
Rup Diamonds v. Union of India
State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya
Retired employees are entitled to gratuity and interest on delayed payments, with the court having no discretion to deny interest under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of delay and laches in seeking relief after retirement, emphasizing that such claims should be made within a reasonable time and that....
Delay in filing a writ petition can bar claims for relief, especially in service matters, as established by the principles of delay and laches.
Interest on delayed payment of retirement gratuity and commuted pension value is payable where benefits are withheld due to disciplinary proceedings, following exoneration, based on statutory rules a....
Retiral benefits, including gratuity and pension, constitute vested property rights under Article 300A; delayed payment breaches the right to livelihood under Article 21, and employers must timely se....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.