Harish Chandra Mahto ……… v. 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Govt
Case Details
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. 2 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 For the Resp.
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Prabhat Singh, Advocate : 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 1st 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 1st 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 3 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 4 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. 5 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. kunal (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)