E. Buchi Rajam v. Managing Director H/o Singareni Bhawan

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the Respondents to pay the enhanced Gratuity payable tq the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. BHUKYA CHANDRAKALA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 6: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 5: SRI NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO, SC FOR SCCL The Court made the following: ORDER w'/ THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDTIA WRIT PETITION No. 36637 of 2Ol4 ORDER: This writ petition is frled to declare the action of respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for recti{ication of basic pay on par with his juniors as per Circular dated

08.72.2O1O referring to Circular No.P(PM)/3188/ 1 15 dated

01.02.2000 and further not paying his gratuity and other benefits as per the National Coal Wage Agreement as illegal and to direct the respondents to recti$r basic pay on par with his juniors and pay the gratuity and other benefits applicable to the petitioner as per his eligibility and service of 36 years and all other consequentia-l benefits.

2. Petitioner stated that he joined as Casual Labour and later he was appointed as Genera-l Mazdoor on O3.03.1976 and he was promoted as Timberman in V.K.Incline in the year 7979. When he was issued notice on retirement, he challenged the same before the High Court on the ground of wrong entry of his date of birth and this Court directed to continue till 12.O3.2012 and accordingly he retired on 12.03.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. He noticed that he received less pay than his x 2 juniors and made a representation dated 30.04.2010 to correct and fix his basic pay on par with his juniors and the same is pending. Respondents also issued another circular dated

08. i 2 .20 10 reiterating the earlier instructions in Circular No.P(PM)/3188/1i5 dated 01.02.2OO0 giving benefit of pay fixation of senior empioyees on par with juniors to be extended only to the employees who have submitted their application while in service. After his retirement, he received gratuity of Rs.6,77,801.20l with his last drawn salary being Rs.29,371.39/- and service rendered for only 35 years as per the date of birth that is in dispute before this Court instead of 36 years.

3. Petitioner further stated that he was entitled for leave encashment benefits amounting to Rs.1,29,18O/- as on the date of his retirement but only received an amount of Rs.71,269/-. He also made further representations on 2O. lO.2Ol2 and 08.06.2013 to fur his pay on par with his juniors, but respondents vide letter dated 16.08.2O13 informed that his case was not considered as his application is received after he left the services. He got a lega1 notice issued on 2 1 .O8.2013 that he had made an application while he was in service in 2O10 and to recti$/ the mistake and fix 3 his basic pay on par with is juniors from 2005. Respondents vide reply notice letter dated 09.10.2013 denied his application of basic pay on par with his juniors as the subsequent representations are made after retirement. He is drawing pension of Rs.4,600/- while others who retired with him are drawing upto Rs.10,000/-. He filed W.P.No. 4O2l of 201 1 declaring the action of respondents proposing to retire him on 3 f .03.20 I 1 and to set aside the notices dated 20.09.2O1O, 11.12.2O1O and 16.12.2O10 and to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till 31.03.2012. As per interim direction, he was continuing services till

31.03.2012, as such he is entitled for revision of pay on par with his juniors.

4. In a counter frled by respondents, it is stated that petitioner gave representation on 20.10.2O12 atd 08.06.2013 after his retirement, as such they were not considered and even his request for continuing the service for another year was a-lso considered and he was promoted and as per interim direction of this Court he continued till 31.03.2012. While calculating the gratuity 15 days wages will be considered for the first 30 years of service rendered and one month wages for the remaining years of service after 3O I I i l l l E\ 4 years. In this case, gratuity is calculated for 35 years and last drawn wages Rs.29,371 .39/-. Petitioner misrepresented the gratuity calculation and calculated one month rvages for total service. As per ieave encashment rules and last wages drawn by the petitioner, he was paid ieave encashment amount of Rs.71,269/- as per his eligibility. Therefore, requested this Court to dismiss the petition.

5. Rejoinder was filed against the counter in which it is stated that he completed 36 years of service and the gratuity amount was paid for 35 years. Petitioner retired on 12.03.2012 and he received gratuity of Rs.6,77,80 l.2O l- and his service rendered was taken as 35 years. Petitioner gave representation dated

30.04.2010 prior to the retirement and it was denied by the Oflrcer and he gave another representation dated 2O.LO.2O|2 in which it was signed by the same Officer, but there was no stamp of the Office.

6. The main contention of the respondents is that the application dated 20. lO.2012 was considered as there was stamp on it whereas the application dated 3O.O4.2010 was not considered as there was no stamp of the office. 5

7. Merely because the stamp is not fxed, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not given any application prior to the retirement. In the said application, he stat€d that he gave two applications but no reply was given to him.. eircular was issued the Department on

08. 12.2010 vide Ref No.CRP/PER IPM/3208/2793, in which it is stated as follows: The rectijlcation of anomalg in pay after satisfging that anomaly has isen in the cases of senior emplogee in the same senioitA list, designated and cadre by stepping up to the leuel of the pag of junior emplogees from the date of the anomalg has arisen uould be limited onlg to the employees tuho are continuing in seruice- In respect of ex- emplogees uho haue lefi the seruices of the compang for anA reason, this benefit is not to be ertended if theg haue submitted application afier leauing Compang seruice. Hou.teuer, if the ex-emplogee has submitted the representation for rectifi.cation of anomalg in basic pag fixation u-thile in seruice, but his cose wos settled for rectificotion of anomaly in basic pay afier he left the seruices due to retirement or other reasons, in such cases, the benefit of rectifcation of anomalg in basic pag is to be extended.

8. As per the rules, the employees are supposed to give representation while in service. In this case, he gave representation while in service in the year 2010 much before his E 6 retirement. In W.P.M.P.NI.4974 of 2OL7 in W.P.No.402t of 2Otl, this Court directed as follows: to stike a balance bettoeen the competing claims it is oppropiate that the wit petitioner mag not be retired from seruice on 31.O3.2O11 subject to his not pressing equities into seruice later on. Hotueuer, the respondent utitl also be not compelled to pag him uages for the peiod commencing from O1.O4.2O11 till this writ petition i-s decided. 9 . Learned counsel for petitioner mainly argued that respondents lvere not compeiied to pay wages tilI the writ petition is decided and it is stated by both the Counsels that writ petition is pending.

10. Admittedly, the said writ petition is fiIed for correction of date of birth and even during the pendency of the writ petition, date of birth stated by the petitioner was accepted and he was allowed to work till 31.03.2012 and he retired on 31.03.2012 but the wages and other benefits were paid ald calculated till 2Ol1 on1y. Learned counsel for respondents mainly contended that in view of the pendency of the writ petition, they have paid wages till 2011 but not till 2012. Petitioner herein worked tlll 2Ol2, as such he is entitled for all benefits till retirement. Merely because the 7 writ petition is pending, the respondents cannot deny the benefits on that ground though, they allowed him to work till 2012. Therefore, respondents are directed to calculhte the benefits til1 the date of his retirement in the year 2OL2 ahd accordingly pay the same within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. No Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUw RflsrRAR /6rrrcen / secrrorf To

1. Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana

2. The Chairmariand Managing Director, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, H/o Singareni Bhawan, R-edhills, Post BorNo.18 Khairatabad (P.O)' Hvderabad - 500 004.

3. The Generat Manager (Kothagudem Area), The Singareni Collieries Cgmpany Limited V.K.N0.7 lncline, Kothagudem Area Khammam District - 507101 4. The Dy. General Manager (Personnel), The 9ingareni Collieries QgqOanV Limitea V.K.N0.7 lncline, Kothagudem Area Khammam District - 507101 5. The Manager The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, V.K.N0.7 lncline, Kothagudem Area Khammam District - 507101

6. Regional Commissioner Coal Mines Provident Fund, Godavarikani, Karimnagar

7. One CCIo M/s. BHUKYA CHANDRAKALA, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY' High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

9. One cC to Snt NRTO|CRM XRISHNA RAO, SC FOR SCCL IOPUC] 10.Two CD Copies PSK. GJP HIGH COURT DATED:1110412025 ORDER WP.No.36637 of 2014 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS lr€ Sf4 I(- 1,I :.+ k i) ) 20 ilAY Affi z oI * DpsPA rcr\eP *