Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1153
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, C.J., RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Kailash Chandra Mukherjee, S/o. Late Lakhan Chandra Mukherjee & Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No.362 of 2024 With I.A No. 5827 of 2024
Decided On : 29-04-2025
For the Appellants : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta.
For the Respondents: Mr. Saibal Mitra, Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh.
Entitlement to pension based on reinstate eligibility despite not meeting service conditions due to employer's delay in allowing work, recognizing principles of equity.
Headnote:(A) Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 - Requirement for ten years of service and 120 months of contributions - Respondent claims pension based on reinstatement and acceptance of service period since initial appointment - Court recognizes entitlement despite actual service not meeting ten-year criteria due to management's non-compliance with reinstatement. (Paras 5, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
Respondent was retrenched and subsequently reinstated per Tribunal's order, yet pension was not paid post-retirement despite deduction for pension contributions. Respondent claims entitlement based on notion of service.
Findings of Court:
Court upholds entitlement to pension, asserting the management's delay in reinstatement should not disadvantage the respondent. Orders management to process pension.
Issues: Was the respondent entitled to pension given the service period and contribution requirements of the Pension Scheme?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that owing to management's fault in the delay of reinstatement, the respondent’s service should be recognized as continuous for the purposes of pension eligibility.
Result: Appeal dismissed, management ordered to process the respondent's pension.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. discussion on respondent's pension and procedural directives. (Para 1) |
| 2. background on respondent's service and pensions due (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. appellants argue against pension eligibility (Para 5 , 9) |
| 4. court analysis on pension entitlement despite service gaps (Para 10 , 12) |
| 5. court's reasoning on entitlement over the appellants' fault (Para 11 , 13) |
| 6. final orders for pension payment and dismissal of appeal (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Shankar, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated15.03.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 31 of 2021 whereby the learned Single Judge of this court has allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent no.1 and has directed the respondents/appellants to fix the pension of the respondent no.1 after fulfilment of the formalities as per requirements of law.
2. The factual background of the case is that the respondent no. 1 was appointed in Barora Area of M/s BCCL, however, he along with other workmen were retrenched with effect from 19.12.1983 which led to raising of an industrial dispute by the sponsoring Union. Subsequently, the said dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad (in short CGIT-1) which was registered as Ref No. 151 of 1989. The Reference was answered by the Tribunal vide its Award dated 21.02.1992 directing the management of BCCL to reinstate the respondent no. 1 and other workmen in service with effect from 22.12.1983 and pay them back wages.
3. The award of reinstatement passed by the learned CGIT was upheld up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The management of BCCL entered into a settlement with the concerned Union representing the respondent no.1 and other workmen on 27.06.2014 to comply the award of reinstatement dated 21.02.1992 passed by the CGIT No.1, Dhanbad in Ref. No. 151 of 1989 and thereafter M/s BCCL reinstated the respondent no. 1 with effect from the date of award dated 21.02.1992. The service of respondent no. 1 was confirmed with effect from 01.02.2015 on the post of General Mazdoor (Surface) Category-1 and as per the pension scheme, the appellants deducted some amount from the monthly salary of the respondent no.1 towards contribution of pension.
4. The respondent no. 1 retired from service on 30.06.2016 and he was paid Gratuity and Provident Fund amount, however Pension was not paid to him. The respondent no. 1 filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 31 of 2021 with a prayer to release his pension from the date of retirement from service as well as for payment of arrear of pension with interest @ 10% per annum. The said writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 15.03.2024 observing that the petitioner had completed ten years of service which was the requirement of pensionable service and as such he is entitled to pension calculating the period of service rendered by him with effect from 21.02.1992 as per Clause 4 of the Settlement dated 27.06.2014.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned order primarily on the ground that on combined reading of Para 2(o) and Para 2(q) of the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 it would be evident that for entitlement of pension, an employee has to render actual service for 10 years as well as he is required to pay at least 120 months of contribution towards pension under the Scheme 1998, however, admittedly the respondent no. 1 has neither rendered actual service of 10 years nor the contribution towards pension has been deducted from his monthly pay slip for a period of 120 months. As such, he is not entitled to pension under CMPS , 1998. It is further submitted that one time pension has been computed under para 10(4) of the CMPS 1998 and the amount of contribution payable to the respondent no.1 by way of return was determined as Rs. 44,350/- and was paid to him in the month of December, 2016 itself.
6. The learned counsel for the CMPFO submits that CMPFO acts upon the r
