Kuldip Chouhan v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (in short BCCL)

--- : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Petitioner For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 5 : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate For the Resp. No. 6 : Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, Advocate --- 10/09.06.2022 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “I. For quashing of the Reasoned Order dated 11-07-2019 (Annexure-10) passed by the respondent no.-5 by which the claim of the petitioner for arrear of wages and other benefits of NCWA-VI has been rejected, in spite of the specific direction for the same (Annexure-9) passed by a bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 09-04-2019 in W.P.(S) No. – 6463/2016. II. For payment of arrear of wages as per NCWA-VI with interest from the date of due to the date of payment. III. For release the difference amount of CMPF arising out of revised pay scale as per the NCWA-VI, to CMPF Authority. IV. For revised the pension after extending the benefit of NCWA –VI and make the payment of arrear-pension.” The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

3. had moved this Court earlier in W.P.(S) No. 6463 of 2016 which was disposed of on 09.04.2019. The learned counsel submits that from the perusal of the said order it is apparent that the counsel for the 2 respondents had made a statement before this Court that the entire retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner except arrears on account of pay revision as well as provident fund on account of such revision and that the petitioner had to sign some documents and only when his signature is obtained, the amount will be processed to be paid to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel further submits that on the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the Area Personnel Manager, Sijua Area, BCCL, Dhanbad so that the respondents could process for payment of the claim of the petitioner within a period of six weeks who was also directed to forward the claim with regard to provident fund amount to the CMPF within the same period. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after having made the aforesaid statement before the writ court, the reasoned order dated 11.07.2019 has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner by recording that, the Area Manager of P.B. Area, where the petitioner was posted, had informed vide letter no. 258 dated 28/01.06/07 that no records were found to show any dues of arrears and that the petitioner also failed to produce any documents relating to arrear dues. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order is an arbitrary exercise of power and is fit to be set-aside. He submits that it was for the respondents to verify the records and make payment to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that after the order passed by this Court, necessary formalities were undertaken and a letter was issued to the Putki Balihari area of respondent- BCCL and it was found that the petitioner was posted in this area from 1996 to 2001, but no records were found to substantiate that any salary/arrear payment of PF deduction stood unpaid. The learned counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner is a stale claim and when no records were found by the respondents to verify the claim of the petitioner and even the petitioner did not have any material to substantiate his claim, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order. 3

7. At this, upon a query by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of arrears of the petitioner relates to the period January, 2000 to March, 2001 only when the petitioner was posted in Putki Balihari Area. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that even as per the petitioner, the claim of salary/arrear payment of PF deduction relates to the period from January, 2000 to March 2001 and the petitioner had approached this Court only in the year 2016 by filing the writ petition for the aforesaid claim. The counsel for the respondents had submitted before this Court that the petitioner had to sign some documents and thereafter, the claim would be processed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his representation before the Area Personnel Manager, Sijua area, BCCL, Dhanbad pursuant to order dated 09.04.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6463 of 2016, who took up the matter and since the petitioner was posted in Putki Balihari Area, asked for certain information from Putki Balihari Area regarding the claim of the petitioner. In response, the Area Manager of Putki Balihari Area issued letter dated 29.06.2019 stating as under: “Please refer to your office letter no. 460 dated 25.05.2015 the above noted subject regarding status of regarding salary/Arrear payment and PF deduction in respect of Sri Kuldip Chouhan during his posting at South Balihari Colliery from 1996 to 2001. In this regard the same was been forwarded to the concerned colliery for further verification of the facts and the unit concerned submitted that Sri Kuldip Chouhan was posted at South Balihari Colliery during Jan’ 2000 to March’ 2001 and that any salary/arrear payment of PF deduction is unpaid at South Balihari Colliery. The copy of letter is being enclosed herewith for your kind perusal and further necessary action in this regard. This is for your kind information please.” is no records available to substantiate

9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner does not have any document to substantiate his claim. The petitioner has neither filed his representation along with the writ petition nor has filed any document before this Court to substantiate his claim. Further, it appears from the counter-affidavit and particularly Annexure-B that the claim of the petitioner could not be verified by the respondents in view of the fact 4 that no records were available. It is also not in dispute that the claim of the petitioner is very old claim relating to the period January, 2000 to March, 2001. In such circumstances, the claim itself is a stale claim and accordingly, this court is not inclined to grant any relief to the writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the claim of the petitioner is neither capable of being verified by the respondents in absence of the documents relating to the said period as has been mentioned in Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit nor the petitioner has any documents to substantiate his claim. 10. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner in view of the fact that the claim of the petitioner was not capable of being verified in absence of records. 11. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly, dismissed. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)