The High Court
Case Details
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 For the Respondents : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate Order No. 12/Dated 17th 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). 2 (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.” 3 2.
Decision
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. 4 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 5 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. 6 16. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Birendra/ (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)