Chattisgarh High Court
Jitendra Sharma vs Secl on 11 October, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 535 of 2022
Jitendra Sharma S/o Late Kirit Sharma, Aged About 61 years, R/o Q.No. -
B/27, Jarhi Colony, SECL Bhatgaon Area, P.O- Bhatgaon, Tahsil
Pratappur, District : Surajpur (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. SECL Through Its Chairman cum Managing Director Headquarter
at Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. General Manager SECL, Bhatgaon Area, Bhatgaon, P.S. Bhatgaon,
District : Surajpur (C.G.)
3. Area Personnel Manager SECL, Bhatgaon Area, P.S. Bhatgaon,
District : Surajpur (C.G.)
4. Manager (Personnel) SECL Kalyani Sub Area, Bhatgaon Area,
Bhataon, District : Surajpur (C.G.)
5. Regional Commissioner, Officer at CMPF Organization, Shanti
Nagar, Gupteshwar, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur (M.P.)
6. Regional Commissioner, Office at CMPF Organization, Seepat
Road, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. R.R. Sinha, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
11.10.2022
Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.
Also heard Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for
respondents No. 1 to 4, Mr. R.R. Sinha, learned counsel, appearing for
respondent No. 5 and Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel, appearing
for respondent No. 6.
2. This writ appeal is presented by the petitioner against the order
dated 17.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S)
No. 5423 of 2022, whereby, the learned Single Judge has directed South
Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) to make payment of retiral dues of the
petitioner within 15 days of vacation of the quarter occupied by him, after
adjusting house rent allowances (HRA), which is permissible as per
policy of the SECL.
3. The petitioner retired from SECL from the post of Office
Superintendent, Grade-A-I on 30.06.2021.
4. The writ petition was filed challenging a notice dated
08.04.2022/04.08.2022 by which the petitioner was asked to vacate the
quarter allotted to him during his service tenure. Prayer was also made to
direct the respondent authorities to decide the representation dated
08.08.2022 filed in connection with non-payment of retiral dues and to
make payment of outstanding amount of Rs. 8,56,500/-. Further prayer
not to recover penal rent of the quarter amounting to Rs. 2,500/- per
month from the petitioner was also made.
5. It is not in dispute that after retirement, an employee of SECL is
entitled to retain the quarter for a further period of three months. The
petitioner has continued to occupy the quarter though period of three
months expired long back.
6. On a query of the Court, Mr. Shukla has submitted that the
petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 65,59,095/- and Rs. 20,00,000/-
towards payment of Coal Mines Provident Fund (CMPF) and gratuity,
respectively. The amount of Rs. 65,59,095/- was paid in the month of
December, 2021. In addition to above, the petitioner is being paid
pension of Rs. 25,667/- per month.
7. According to Mr. Agrawal, a sum of Rs. 4,10,493.20 and a sum of
Rs. 92,063.93 are due to be paid to the petitioner on account of leave
encashment and Productivity Linked Reward Scheme Bonus. However,
applicable house rent including penal rent payable by the petitioner has
to be adjusted from the said amounts. It is submitted that because of the
petitioner unauthorizedly holding on to the quarter, the authorities have to
make alternative arrangement for taking house on rent to give to his
successor.
8. Mr. Shukla submits that as there was late payment of CMPF by six
months, the petitioner is entitled to interest.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of
the opinion that present is not a case for where this Court ought to
consider grant of payment of interest. However, liberty is reserved to the
petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings, if so advised, to claim
interest on the aforesaid amount.
10. On due consideration of the materials on record and after hearing
the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in this appeal
and accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Sanjay Agrawal)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
