Balchand Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1413 Jhar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cont. Case (Civil). No. 1127 of 2019
                                          ....

             Balchand Paswan                                      ....    Petitioner
                                          Versus
            The State of Jharkhand & Ors.                          .... Opposite Parties
                                          ....
             CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

                For the Petitioner              : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Adv.
                For the State                   : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sah, AC to AAG-IV
                For the BCCL                    : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Adv.
                                                  Ms. Swati Shalini, Adv.
                For the CMPF                    : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Adv.
                                                ....

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

07/19.03.2021 Defects as pointed out by the office are hereby ignored.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present contempt petition has been filed for non compliance of order dated 05.07.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No.4948 of 2016.

In the above case, the regular deduction of 2% has been made from the salary of the employee but he has not been paid pension for which the deduction has been made. The impugned order has been passed taking into consideration that once deduction has been made, employee is entitle for pension, as this issue has already been settled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted in the judgment.

In spite of above fact, a show cause has been filed by the opposite party no.3 taking plea that since required form has not been filled up by the petitioner and as such he is not entitled for pension. It appears that against the judgment passed in W.P.(S) No.6459 of 2007, Review Petition, L.P.A. and S.L.P. have already been dismissed. Further the show cause has been filed by the BCCL stating that they have forwarded the claim of the petitioner as required under the law to be performed by the BCCL.

The defense taken by the CMPF authorities that L.P.A. has been filed in the year 2019 and that is the reason for non compliance of the order, which is nothing but circumventing the order of the Court, especially if the said L.P.A. is still defective.

Once an issue has been settled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reagitating the same issues again and again is against the National Litigation Policy, which is applicable to the opposite party-CMPF also.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of CMPF is directed to file a detailed response stating the reason for not following the National Litigation Policy and further give information that filing of L.P.A. is a routine by the CMPF or they do it selectively against one or other individuals.

As prayed for, put up this case on 23.04.2021.

By that date, the detailed show cause must be filed by the authority of CMPF.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/