Jharkhand High Court
Mathura Shaw Son Of Late Nageshwar Saw vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Through Its ... on 17 February, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.3491 OF 2014
-----
Mathura Shaw son of Late Nageshwar Saw, resident of
Baniyahir, New Colony, No.-10, P.O. Bhaga, P.S. Jharia,
District Dhanbad ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad,
Jharkhand.
2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal
Ltd., office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. Koyla
Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
3. Director Personnel, Director, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.,
office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S.
Saraidhela, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
4. Project Officer, Bagdigi Colliery, Lodna Area, P.O. & P.S.
Lodna, District Dhanbad.
5. General Manager, B.C.C.L., Lodna Area-X, P.O. & P.S.
Lodna, District Dhanbad.
6. Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner, office At &
P.O. Hirapur, P.S. Hirapur, District Dhanbad.
7. Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund,
Regional Office-III, Dhanbad, 826 001.
... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
------
th
Order No. 12/Dated 17 February, 2024
1. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the
following directions have been sought for :-
"That the petitioner craves your lordships indulgence for
issuance of writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ /
writs, order / orders, direction / directions commanding
upon the respondents to pay the arrears of retirement
benefits to the petitioner such as:-
(I) C.M.P.F. amount for 8 years (for the period from
17.10.1971 to 31.03.1979).
(II) Arrears of difference of salary.
(III) Arrears of gratuity.
(IV) Fall back amount for the period February, March
and April of the year 2011.
(V) Bonus of the years 2010, 2011.
(VI) L.T.C. amount.
(VII) Leave encashment.
(VIII) Arrears of tramming rate.
(IX) Other admitted arrears of retirement benefits to the
petitioner, such as:-
(a) C.M.P.F. amount should be paid in accordance with
pay slip because C.M.P.F. amount paid to the petitioner
from 01.04.1979 till his retirement on 01.08.2011 was
wrong.
(b) C.M.P.F. amount of the year 1977, 1978 be paid,
which is still unpaid.
(c) Payment of S.L.U. as per Rule.
(d) Gratuity as per 9th Wage-Board and amount of
S.L.U., fall back and one increment should be included
alongwith the balance amount.
(e) Pension as per 9th wage Board. S.L.U., fallback be
included in 8th Wage Board, basic rate of wages is
Rs.414.98/- but company has paid as per Rs. 352.47/-,
which is wrong.
(f) Increment @ 3% p.a. in salary on the basic pay of
Rs.414.98/- instead of 352.47/- and special P.R.
allowance.
(g) Payment of C.M.P.F. amount of the petitioner be
made according to National Coal Wage Book-VIII, as the
petitioner has worked for 24 years in underground coal
mines.
(h) Not to deduct any panel rent with regard to
occupation of companies quarter as the retirement
benefits have not been paid to the petitioner in its
entirety.
(i) Petitioner also prays for a direction to the
respondents to pay the retirement dues with interest at
the present banking market rate."
2. The claim of the writ petitioner is that even though
he has retired from service, but the arrears as per the
claim, has not been paid in entirety.
3. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, has referred Annexure-7 dated 26.12.2013
whereby and whereunder leaving apart some of the claims,
the other claims have been admitted but the ground for
non-disbursement has been taken as non-vacation of the
company's quarter after three months' of the retirement.
4. Learned counsel has submitted that there is no
difficulty in vacating the quarter and even there is no
dispute in making payment of market rent but the question
herein is that even though the quarter has not been
vacated, the admissible post retiral benefit cannot be
allowed to be withheld by the authority concerned.
5. Mr. Ankit Vishal, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, has submitted that the due decision will be
taken for disbursement of rest of the admissible amount
under the post-retiral head.
6. So far as non-admissible amount is concerned,
which is being disputed, a separate decision will be taken
by communicating the same to the petitioner within specific
period.
7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties
and gone across the pleadings made on their behalf.
8. So far as the disbursement of rest of the amount as
per the prayer made in the writ petition as under
paragraph-1 is concerned, the same is not in dispute as
would be evident from the reasoned order as available in
Annexure-7 to the writ petition.
9. However, the ground has been taken of non-
vacation of quarter in the aforesaid order dated 26.12.2013
(Annexure-7).
10. So far as the claim of the writ petitioner is
concerned, it cannot be disputed that the same being an
entitlement of the petitioner, is required to be disbursed in
favour of the employee who has retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation.
11. Equally it is settled that if such employee is
retaining the quarter after retirement, then the market rent
of that area is to be paid by the concerned employee as per
the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Secretary, O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Anr. v. V. U. Warrier
[(2005) 5 SCC 245], wherein the respondent was an officer
in ONGC and he, after attaining the age of superannuation,
as per the policy of ONGC, was granted four months' time
to vacate the quarters. However, the respondent failed to do
so. His prayer for continuing in the quarters was rejected.
He was informed that penal rent as per the ONGC policy
would be recovered from him and ONGC deducted the
penal rent from gratuity but the respondent vacated the
quarters only after eviction proceedings were initiated
against him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ONGC
had a right to withhold gratuity by deducting the amount
found due to it and payable by the employee towards penal
charges for unauthorized occupation of the quarters.
12. By referring to Wazir Chand Vs. Union of India,
reported in (2001) 6 SCC 596, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that the action of the ONGC deducting penal rent from
gratuity in terms of the Regulations was not arbitrary,
unlawful and unreasonable.
13. This Court, therefore, is of the view that this writ
petition needs to be disposed of with a direction upon the
respondents to disburse the rest of the admissible amount
along with the admissible interest within the period of three
months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
14. So far as the market rent of the retained quarter is
concerned, the authority will take separate decision in that
regard and the amount which is to be paid to the writ
petitioner, be paid after adjusting the said market rent.
15. Further, if any amount claimed is disputed, said to
be not as per entitlement of the writ petitioner, the decision
with respect to the said claim is to be communicated to the
writ petitioner by passing speaking order within the
aforesaid period.
16. With the above observations and directions, this
writ petition stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Birendra/
