Advocates:
['MUKESH KR SINHA', '', 'ANKIT APURVA', 'RAJIV SINHA', '', 'BHARAT B PRASAD', 'PRASHANT KR SINGH']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 353 of 2021

1.Dinesh Prasad Murmu

2.Smt. Munu Devi

-- --- Petitioners

Versus

1.The Union of India

2.The Secretary, Ministry of Coal, New Delhi

3.The Officer on Special Duty, Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India, Dhanbad

4.Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner, Dept. of Coal,

Ministry of Energy, Govt. of India, Dhanbad

5.Regional Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Energy

(Dept. of Coal), Dhanbad

6.Sr. Pay and Accounts Officer, Principal Account Office,

Ministry of Coal, New Delhi

7.Malaria Officer, CMLO, Dhanbad

--- --- Respondents

…....

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate

For the U.O.I.

: M/s Bakshi Vibha, Bharat B. Prasad, CGC

For the CMPF

: Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate

11/14.06.2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Applicants’ claim for calculating the service period under

CMLWO

(Coal

Mines

Labour

Welfare

Organization)

from

07/09.08.1976 as casual labour up to 13.06.1980 and then from

13.06.1980 to 30.09.1986 on their regularization till merger in the Coal

India Limited (CIL) for pensionary benefits, has been declined by the

learned Central Administrative Tribunal vide impugned order dated

21.12.2018 passed in O.A. No. 51/86/2017 (Annexure-8). On counting

the above period of service, it would come to 8 years 2 months and 20

days and 8 years 2 months and 19 days respectively as only 50% of the

period spent as casual from 07/09.08.1976 to 13.06.1980 in respect of

both the applicants could be reckoned as qualifying service in terms of

the CCS Pension Rules, 1972.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicants has questioned the impugned

order on this very ground alone.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondent CMPF has relied upon the

office memorandum No. 51016/2/90-Estt.(C) dated 10.09.1993 in

support of the impugned order and submits that only 50% of the service

rendered under the temporary status would be counted for the purpose of

retirement benefits in respect of those casual labours who have been

regularized. Petitioners did not therefore qualify for pensionable service.

There is no error in the impugned order.

-2-

5.

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the

parties and given anxious consideration to the plea raised by the

petitioners as to the total period of qualifying service spent under

CMLWO. Facts are not in dispute. Both the petitioners remained in

casual labour capacity from 07/09.08.1976 to 13.06.1980, only 50% of

which period could be reckoned for qualifying pensionary service on

their regularization on 13.06.1980 till CMLWO got merged with CIL in

30.09.1986. Counting the total period upon their regularization till the

merger of CMWLO with CIL, it comes to 8 years 2 months and 20 days

and 8 years 2 months and 19 days respectively in case of both the

petitioners, which does not qualify for pensionary benefits under Rule 14

of the CCS(Pension) Rules 1972. As such there is no error in the

impugned order calling for interference. The writ petition is accordingly

dismissed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

A.Mohanty