Jharkhand High Court
The Union Of India Through ... vs Tara Devi on 10 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (T) No. 1002 of 2019
The Union of India through Secretary, Government of India,
Ministry of Coal, New Delhi through Animesh Bharti, Officer on
Special Duty, Government of India, Ministry of Coal, presently
working as OSD, SO(W), Kalyan Bhawan, Dhanbad --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. Tara Devi
2. Mary Hembrom
3. Jacob Hembrom
4. Shambhu Modak
5. Jagdish Mishra
6. Jai Prakash Roy
7. Jai Govind Prasad
8. Laxman Thakur
9. Raj Kumar Sao
10. Chandra Kant Lal Das
11. The Officer on Special Duty, Government of India, Ministry of coal,
Dhanbad
12. The Special Officer (W), Office of Officer on Special Duty, Ministry of
Coal, Dhanbad
13. The Senior Accounts Officer, Regional Pay and Accounts Office, Ministry
of Coal, Dhanbad --- --- Respondents
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
---
For the Petitioner: Ms. Ruby Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondents 1,4-8 & 10: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate
---
06 / 10.05.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Writ petitioner is the Railways, Respondent before the learned CAT,
Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00055/2017 who is
aggrieved by the order dated 07.08.2018 (Annexure-3) passed by the learned
CAT.
3. On the previous date, after considerable argument from the petitioner's
side, this Court allowed time to the learned counsel for the petitioner to seek
instruction from the competent authority, whether to prosecute the writ petition
or to carry out the impugned direction passed by the learned Tribunal in view of
the case of the parties in the light of the legal position summarized in the
previous order dated 12.04.2022 also taking into note the previous direction
passed by this Court in the case of Mohan Mahto and others versus Union of
India and others in W.P (S) No. 1288/2012 judgment dated 07.02.2014. For
easy reference, the order dated 12.04.2022 is extracted hereunder:
"Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel has appeared for the
private respondents except respondent nos. 2, 3 & 9 by filing
vakalatnama. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Ruby
Pandey has sought to press this application.
2. On perusal of the impugned order and on consideration of
the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and some of
the private respondents, it appears that the instant case relates to
the plea of pro-rata pension with arrears and interest by the
applicants by reckoning the period of their services under Coal
Mines Labour Welfare Organization (for short 'CMLWO')
before their absorption in 1986 in various subsidiaries of Coal
India Limited.
3. It appears that there has been earlier round of litigation by
persons claiming benefits of past service under CMLWO before
their absorption in Coal India Limited for seeking pro-rata
pension.
4. Learned Tribunal in the instant case has placed reliance
upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohan Mahto
and others versus Union of India and others in W.P (S) No.
1288/2012 dated 07.02.2014, the operative part whereof has also
been quoted by the learned CAT. Those directions have been
implemented in the case of Mohan Mahto and others whose claim
was rejected by the Tribunal earlier. The learned Tribunal has
held at para-10 of the impugned judgment that the issue is no
more res integra in the light of the judgment of this Court in the
case of Mohan Sharma and others (Supra) where the direction
of this Court is very clear that in absence of records with the
Respondents, certificates issued by the concerned officers of
CMLWO under whom these applicants have worked, have to be
relied upon. The said judgment has later on been followed by the
Tribunal also and specific directions have been issued to apply it
in the case of all employees of erstwhile CMLWO, even though
some of them might not have knocked the door of any judicial
forum. Learned Tribunal has, in the operative part of the order,
directed the Respondents / petitioners herein to verify the records
in regard to the service rendered by these applicants as casual
labourers when they were working under CMLWO and grant
benefits of pro-rata pension to them for that period. In case
records are not available, then the period of service rendered by
these applicants as casual labourers shall be reckoned on the basis
of certificates issued by the concerned officers of CMLWO under
whom applicants have worked. Learned Tribunal has further held
that the Respondents shall determine the proportionate pension of
all the applicants within the time period and if they are found
entitled, release the same along with arrears. A reading of the
impugned order gives a prima facie impression that only in case
records regarding the service rendered by the casual labourers are
not available in CMLWO, certificates issued by the concerned
officers of CMLWO have to be relied upon. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has laboured to argue that the records of muster roll
with the organization do not match with the certificates produced
by the applicants for substantiating their claim of period of
service under CMLWO in casual labour.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken a plea of
delay in approaching the Court. Learned Tribunal has however
referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of
Uttar Pradesh & others versus Arvind Kr. Shrivastava &
others [(2015 1 SCC 347] to answer the said objection by
holding that the judgment passed earlier by the High Court and
Tribunal are in rem and need to be followed in respect of the
persons who have not approached the Court.
6. It appears that the exercise contemplated in the directions
of learned Tribunal, as noted herein above, have not been carried
out and the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court on
mistaken understanding of the purport of the order. Learned
counsel for the petitioner therefore, prays for time to seek
instruction from the competent authority whether to prosecute the
writ petition or the directions of learned Tribunal are to be carried
out.
7. Since the matter is pending since long, three weeks' time
and no more is allowed for that purpose. List the case on
10.05.2022."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states on instruction that the
competent authority under the petitioner organization is ready and willing to
carry out the direction of learned Tribunal in the light of law laid down by this
Court in the case of Mohan Mahto and others (Supra) which are in the nature
of a judgment in rem.
4. There is no quarrel with the proposition laid down by this Court in view
of the direction passed by this Court in the case of Mohan Mahto and others
(Supra) that only in the absence of availability of records with the organization,
certificates issued by the concerned official of CMLWO under whom applicants
worked were to be relied upon. The competent authority is, therefore, required
to carry out verification in that light only for reckoning the qualifying period of
service under CMLWO for grant of pensionary benefits to the applicants /
Respondents. The impugned direction at para 11(i) & (ii) is however clarified
only to the extent that in case verification of the records relating to the services
rendered by the applicants as casual labour results in favour of the applicants
and they are found to have completed the qualifying period of service under
CMLWO, the applicants would be entitled to pensionary benefits in same terms
granted to the petitioners in Mohan Mahto and others (Supra) along with
arrears. Rest of the impugned directions regarding payment of arrears and
interest in the light of the order passed in the case of Mohan Mahto and others
(Supra) remain intact. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J)
Ranjeet/
