IMPORTANT POINT
Pension is a right and not a bounty; the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 despite the existence of alternative remedies, especially in cases of clear injustice.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a direction upon the respondent CCL with respect to the payment of post retiral benefits treating the date of retirement as 30.06.2008, i.e., Gratuity, leave encashment, pension, salary/wages from July, 1995 to June, 2008 amount, bonus and other admissible benefits, as also, the direction upon the CMPF to release the arrears of provident fund on the basis of the date of retirement as 30.06.2008.

2. The issue involved in this case is with respect to the arrears of retiral benefits and the CMPF amount. The same has, although been paid, based upon the age of the writ petitioner, which has been accepted by the C.C.L. as 07.06.1948, since, as per the date of birth of the writ petitioner, as available in the service record, the normal age of superannuation of the writ petitioner is 30.06.2008.

3. It needs to refer herein that the issue of date of birth has culminated into a dispute by way of reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The same has been adjudicated by the adjudicator, i.e., the industrial tribunal in reference case no.58 of 1998, wherein, the reference, i.e.,

“Whether the action of the management of Amlo Project, CCL in Superannuating Sri Ganesh Turi, T.R. worker by not correcting his date of birth as per Form “B” Register, C.M.P.F. records etc. is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

4. The said reference was answered in favour of the petitioner workman.

5. The CCL, being aggrieved with the said award, had preferred a writ petition being W.P.(L) No.235 of 2014, but the said writ petition was dismissed.

6. The CCL, being aggrieved with the order passed in W.P.(L) No.235 of 2014 dated 06.07.2019 has preferred letters patent appeal being L.P.A. No.109 of 2020. The aforesaid letters patent appeal being L.P.A. No.109 of 2020 has also been dismissed declining to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No.235 of 2014.

7. Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has drawn the attention of the Court towards the proceeding of Lok Adalat, wherein, at the time of coming to settlement, the plea was taken by the CCL that the issue of date of birth is lying pending for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.109 of 2020 and as such, the issue cannot be settled.

8. However, so far as the amount of CMPF is concerned, it has been recorded in the aforesaid order passed by the Lok Adalat that the CMPF authority has already made payment of the amount pertaining to provident fund and pension admissible, as per the Coal Mines Provident Fund Act, 1948.

9. When this case has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.109 of 2020 which was the subject matter of the judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.(L) No.235 of 2014 in order to show that the said letters patent appeal has been dismissed affirming the judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 06.07.2019 passed in W.P.(L) No.235 of 2014.

10. It has been submitted that now the award having been upheld up to the level of the Division Bench of this Court and hence, the date of retirement of writ petitioner will be treated to be as 30.06.2008, hence, the benefit which was given by treating the date of retirement as July, 1995 will be construed to be 30.06.2008 and hence, the entire arrears from July, 1995 to 30.06.2008 is required to be paid by the CCL so far as post retiral benefits and other admissible dues crept up during the said period.

11. It has further been submitted that the similar relief is also to be given to the writ petitioner so far as it relates to the provident fund amount is concerned since whatever amount has been paid that is on the basis of the date of ret