Banke Bihari Sharma vs The Union Of India Through The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4170 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    W.P (S) No. 3835 of 2022

             Banke Bihari Sharma                     ---          ---     Petitioner
                                              Versus
              1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Govt. of India,
                 Ministry of Coal, New Delhi
              2. The Officer on Special Duty, Govt. of India, Ministry of Coal, Dhanbad
              3. The Regional Pay and Accounts Officer, Regional Pay and Accounts Office,
                 Ministry of Coal, Dhanbad
              4. The Senior Accounts Officer, Regional Pay and Accounts Office,
                 Ministry of Coal, Dhanbad
              5. The Special Officer (W), Office of Officer on Special Duty, Ministry of
                 Coal, Dhanbad                       ---          ---     Respondents
                                                    ---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

---

              For the Petitioner:       Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate
              For the Resp.-UoI:        M/s Anil Kumar, Addl. S.G.I
                                        Mr. Vikash Kumar, C.G.C.
                                                ---
03 / 13.10.2022      Learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment did not accept the plea for

grant of pro-rata pension reckoning the period of nine years and nine months spent under the erstwhile Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization (CMLWO) since, by letter dated 26.07.1985, the employees of CMLWO stood transferred to the cadre of the respective Coal Companies on 01.08.1985 and by that date, he had not completed nine years and nine months under the erstwhile organization.

2. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to para-2 of the same letter, whereunder options were to be invited regarding the absorption of such employees. Employees had three option to opt for. He exercised his option on 14.04.1987 (Annexure-3). Before that, his pay was fixed under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986, as per Annexure-2 dated 31.01.1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised this plea by relying upon Section 37 of CCS (Pension) Rules that if employees were asked to exercise option out of three available to them, and the cut-off date for exercising such option was beyond 01.08.1985, then it would be presumptuous to assume that pursuant to the merger of CMLWO with the CIL, the services of employees got transferred on its own without voluntary exercise of either of the option by them. Petitioner chose to exercise option no. 2 i.e. to continue with the services of BCCL with the terms and conditions of BCCL. Since these arrangements continued after 01.08.1985, the stand of the Respondents that his

services could be counted for reckoning the qualifying service for pension under Section 37 of CCS Pension Rules only till 01.08.1985, is not correct.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent Additional Solicitor General of India Mr. Anil Kumar prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to seek instruction and file counter affidavit. Respondent should also bring on record the letter / circular by which such option were to be exercised.

4. List the case after five weeks, so that the petitioner, if so advised, may file rejoinder thereto.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

(Deepak Roshan, J) Ranjeet/