Jharkhand High Court
Basanti Manki vs The Union Of India Through The ... on 24 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3224 of 2020
.....
Basanti Manki --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Coal, New Delhi.
2. The Officer on Special duty, Ministry of Coal, Dhanbad.
3. The Regional Pay and Accounts Officer, Regional Pay
and Accounts Office, Ministry of Coal, Dhanbad. -- --- Respondents
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Through Video Conferencing
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, A.S.G.I.
---
04/24.02.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.S.G.I.
Of the two applicants in O.A. No. 051/00258/2015, applicant
no.2 got relief from the learned Central Administrative Tribunal for pro-rata
pensionary benefits upon the merger of CMLWO with Coal India Limited
counting the qualifying service under Coal Mines Labour Welfare
Organization (CMLWO) of having worked for 9 years and 9 months.
However, case of the present petitioner i.e. the other applicant was dismissed
for the reason that there was a gap of five months after her training from
August 1968 to May 1972 till she was appointed as Staff Nurse on 24th
October 1972. The period to be counted as qualifying service as per Swamy's
Handbook, 2000 has been referred to at para-8 of the impugned judgment. As
per sub-para (v) pre-appointment training followed immediately by
appointment as Group-'C' and 'D' employees is to be counted as qualifying
service for pension. Thereafter, the specified period which would not count as
qualifying service has also been enumerated under para-8. It is not in dispute
that this petitioner completed training of Nurse in May 1972 and after a gap of
5 months, was appointed on 24th October 1972 as Staff Nurse in Central
Hospital, Dhanbad. Therefore, there was a gap and the appointment was not
immediately following the training.
To overcome this legal hurdle, petitioner has filed a
supplementary affidavit enclosing the Original Application No.216/2003(R)
preferred by Smt. Mariamma Varghese & Ors. also seeking benefit of pro-rata
pension upon the merger of CMLWO with Coal India Limited claiming
themselves to be in service from a particular date, which is more than 10 years
under CMLWO. Learned Tribunal in the impugned order has also referred to
the decision of the Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No.216 of 2003 in the
case of Smt. Mariamma Varghese & Ors. dated 7th August 2003 and held that
it was rendered on different facts and neither the issue were raised or
discussed. The original application was disposed of by a consideration order.
Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner has not been able to
categorically show that the applicants in O.A. No.216 of 2003 (Smt.
Mariamma Varghese & Ors.) stood on similar footing like the petitioner and
that there was a gap in their appointments from the date when they had
completed the training as Nurse. The chart at page 22-23 containing the
names of those applicants at Column 5 only shows the dates of appointment in
CMLWO which is May 1974; October 1972; November 1972, etc. but there is
no averment in the supplementary affidavit or column in the said chart
showing their date of completion of training.
In those circumstances, the petitioner has not been able to make
good the only point taken for seeking relief before the learned CAT and this
Court. Since the applicant's employment could not qualify for the minimum
years of service under CMLWO i.e. 9 years and 9 months, the claim for pro-
rata pension was rightly declined by the learned Tribunal. It further appears
that original application had also been preferred after a considerable delay in
2015 from the date of retirement of the applicant in the year 2004. As such,
we do not find and grounds to interfere in the impugned order. The writ
petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Shamim/
