Balchand Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3250 Jhar

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

            Balchand Paswan                                               ..... Petitioner

                             Versus
            The State of Jharkhand and 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.
            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.

.....

10/03.09.2021 The order dated 19.03.2021 read as under:

"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."

In pursuance of the said order, a show cause has been filed by the opposite party no. 3- CMPF on 06.07.2021. Leaned counsel for the CMPF has relied upon para-19 of the said show cause, which reads as under:

"19. That so far the violation of National Litigation Policy by filing Intra Court Appeal is concerned, it is most respectfully stated that the Answering respondent is the custodian of the Fund created under the CMPF & MP Act 1948 and the Schemes framed there under, and as such is duty bound to Implement and protect the provisions of the Schemes. Under the circumstances, the Answering Opposite Party moves to appellate court where the provisions of the CMPF & MP Act 1948 and the Schemes framed there under are affected, otherwise there are several instances where in the Answering Opposite Party has settled the Genuine cases as per the CMPF & MP Act 1948 and the Schemes framed there under."

Thus, it is an admitted position that the order has been passed on 05.07.2019 in W. P. (S) No. 4948 of 2016, but till date defense is defective LPA. Further the issue, which involves in the present writ petition, has already been settled up to the Apex Court against this opposite party only.

In view of the above fact, by taking lenient view, one more opportunity is given to the opposite party no. 3 to comply the order within four weeks. If order is not complied within the said period, contempt proceeding will be initiated against the present incumbent of the post of the Commissioner and Regional Commissioner, CMPF, Dhanbad, Jharkhand. The authority must disclose the name of the present incumbent, who is responsible for non- compliance of the order.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Kamlesh/