Jharkhand High Court
Harish Chandra Mahto vs The Union Of India Through The ... on 1 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 3973 of 2020
----------
Harish Chandra Mahto ............ Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Personnel &
Training, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
2. Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization through its Commissioner,
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
3. The Regional Commissioner-I, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Region-II,
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
............ Respondents
With
W.P.(S). No. 3995 of 2020
----------
Mahadeo Tirkey ............ Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Personnel &
Training, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
2. Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization through its Commissioner,
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
3. The Regional Commissioner-I, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Region-I,
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
............ Respondents
With
W.P.(S). No. 3991 of 2020
----------
Manager Singh ............ Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Personnel &
Training, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
2. Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization through its Commissioner,
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
3. The Regional Commissioner-I, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Region-II,
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
............ Respondents
With
W.P.(S). No. 4025 of 2020
----------
William Kandulna ............ Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Personnel &
Training, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
2. Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization through its Commissioner,
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
3. The Regional Commissioner-I, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Region-II,
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
............ Respondents
With
W.P.(S). No. 3999 of 2020
----------
Raghvendra Pratap Singh ............ Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Personnel &
Training, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
2. Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization through its Commissioner,
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
3. The Regional Commissioner-I, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Region-II,
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
............ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabhat Singh, Advocate
For the Resp. : Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, Advocate
Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate
----------
07/ 01.08.2023 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner in W.P.S. No. 3973 of 2020 has approached this Court
with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to grant him one
annual notional increment for the purposes of pensionary benefits
w.e.f. 1st July, 2019 for the services rendered by him from 1 st July,
2018 to 30th June, 2019 in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Madras High Court in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017, which has been upheld
upto Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. Petitioner in W.P.S. No. 3995 of 2020 has approached this Court
with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to grant him one
annual notional increment for the purposes of pensionary benefits
w.e.f. 1st July, 2016 for the services rendered by him from 1 st July,
2015 to 30th June, 2016 in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Madras High Court in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017, which has been upheld
upto Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. Petitioner in W.P.S. No. 3991 of 2020 has approached this Court
with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to grant him one
annual notional increment for the purposes of pensionary benefits
w.e.f. 1st July, 2020 for the services rendered by him from 1 st July,
2019 to 30th June, 2020 in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Madras High Court in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017, which has been upheld
upto Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Petitioner in W.P.S. No. 4025 of 2020 has approached this Court
with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to grant him one
annual notional increment for the purposes of pensionary benefits
w.e.f. 1st July, 2016 for the services rendered by him from 1 st July,
2015 to 30th June, 2016 in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Madras High Court in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017, which has been upheld
upto Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. Petitioner in W.P.S. No. 3999 of 2020 has approached this Court
with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to grant him one
annual notional increment for the purposes of pensionary benefits
w.e.f. 1st July, 2019 for the services rendered by him from 1 st July,
2018 to 30th June, 2019 in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Madras High Court in W.P. No. 15732 of 2017, which has been upheld
upto Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for the
petitioners that earlier cases were adjourned on the ground that similar
matters are pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 4722
of 2022 and the same finds strength from para-15 of the counter-
affidavit. Learned counsel further argues that since issue as to whether
the employees are entitled for one annual increment which they have
earned on the last day of service for rendering their services
proceding one year from the date of retirement, has already been
decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case and as such,
similar benefits may also be extended to the present petitioners and a
direction to that effect may be issued.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents jointly argues that since
pending SLP No. 4722 of 2022 has already been decided, if the cases
of the petitioners are squarely covered, same benefits shall be
extended to them also.
9. In view of the fair submissions made by the learned Counsel for
the parties, these writ petitions are being disposed of in terms of the
judgment dated 11.04.2023, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of the Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P.
Mundinamani & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 and also in
SLP (C). No. 4722 of 2021 (Union of India & Anr. Vs. M. Siddaraj)
and if the cases of the present petitioners are found to be same and
similar to the cases of the petitioners in the Director (Admn. And
HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. Civil Appeal
No. 2471 of 2023 and SLP (C). No. 4722 of 2021 (Union of India &
Anr. Vs. M. Siddaraj), the present petitioners are also entitled for the
same benefits.
10. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondents-authorities,
particularly, respondent-CMPF to verify the factual aspects/issues
involved in the present writ petition vis. a vis. factual aspects/issues
involved in the Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P.
Mundinamani & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 and SLP (C).
No. 4722 of 2021 (Union of India & Anr. Vs. M. Siddaraj), and if
the facts/issues involved in the present writ petitions are found to be
similar to the aforementioned cases, the same benefits may be
extended to the present petitioners in accordance with law, within a
period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
kunal
