SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 150

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Badri Nath Roy, S/o. Late Habu Babu Roy - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Coal & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 3612 of 2023
Decided On : 27-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha.
For the State :Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate (ASGI), Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh.

IMPORTANT POINT
Pension is a right and not a bounty; entitlement to pension benefits persists despite delays in claims, especially following a merger of employment establishments.

Headnote:

[PENSION] - [Pro-rata Pension Entitlement] - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985] - [The court discussed the entitlement of pro-rata pension following the merger of the Central Hospital Dhanbad with Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL). It highlighted that upon merger, employees retain their rights to benefits accrued during their previous service. The court emphasized that pension is a right, not a bounty, and should not be denied based on delay when the entitlement exists. The court also addressed the principle of delay and laches, concluding that the petitioner's claim was valid despite the time elapsed since the mother's death, as the cause of action was recurring due to the nature of pension claims.]

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein for quashing the order dated 16.03.2023 (annexure-8), passed in O.A. No. 051/000886/2022 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi whereby and whereunder the original application filed by the petitioner for payment of pro-rata pension from the date of merger with interest has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition based upon the pleading made in the original application filed before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench reads hereunder.

3. The mother of the petitioner, namely, Kamla Roy was a permanent employee of the Central Hospital, Dhanbad and she joined her service on 29.01.1958 as ward and kitchen servant female and her GPF A/c No. CMLWO-109. Service of mother of the petitioner was confirmed on 01.01.1964.

4. The Respondents issued Memo No. CH.4 (45) 73 dated 20.03.1974 in connection with the fixation of pay of the employees of Central Hospital and the name of mother of petitioner appears at Sr. No.3. Under the policy decision of the Government the Central Hospital, Dhanbad which was under the control of Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization (CMLWO), an organization of Central Government, which was merged with Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short BCCL) and the services of the employees of the Central Hospital was also merged with the Management of BCCL by way of merger w.e.f. Memo No. 85 and the employees of the erstwhile CMLWO were held entitled for pro-rata pension on the basis of length of services rendered to CMLWO under Central Government.

5. The mother of the petitioner was not paid pro-rata pension on the basis of merger of her services in the new-organization and she approached to the respondent concerned, meanwhile she died on 18.07.1986 during the services in the new organization BCCL.

6. Petitioner who is the son of the deceased employee have no knowledge about the dues relating to the services of his mother and the same was disclosed to him by the new employer that pro-rata pension is to be paid for the service under erstwhile employer by the said respondent and only then the petitioner submitted his representation on 17.03.2017 before Respondent No.3 for payment of pensionary benefit dues that is to be paid to his mother.

7. Respondents though received the representation but they did not pay the dues relating to pro-rata pension of the mother of the petitioner to the petitioner and in said circumstances petitioner moved before the Central Administrative Tribunal Ranchi Circuit Bench which was registered as O.A. No. 220/2017 and the copy has also been served to the respondent in that case.

8. The respondent issued a letter dated 04.05.2018 vide Reference No. 362 to the petitioner and directed him to furnish documents as mentioned in the letter at earlier date so that pro-rata pension may be paid to him.

9. The O.A. No. 220 of 2017 has been decided by the C.A.T. on 08.01.2019 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to file an application along with relevant documents within a period of two weeks and the respondents were directed to consider the same and pass reasoned and speaking order within 30 days.

10. Petitioner accordingly submitted representation on 31.10.2019 before respondents in view of the order dated 08.01.2019 passed by learned CAT and requested for payment of pro-rata pension of his mother to him.

11. Since the grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed, he again moved before the C.A.T. in contempt petition registered as C.P. No. 28 of 2022 for compliance of the order dated 08.01.2019 passed in O.A. No. 220 of 2017.

12. The aforesaid contempt petition has been heard by the learned C.A.T. on 15.09.2022 and the same has been decided and dismissed on the ground that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top