Nand Kishor Yadav @ Nand Kishore Yadav … … v. 1. The Assistant General Manager
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 5024 of 2021 ---------- Nand Kishor Yadav @ Nand Kishore Yadav … … … Petitioner Versus 1. The Assistant General Manager (Pension), Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office – 10A, Middleton Row, Kolkata, P.O. – Middleton Row, P.S. – Park street, Kolkata 2. The General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Kutchery Chowk, P.O. – GPO, P.S. – Kotwali, District – Ranchi 3. The Manager (IR)/Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Office situated at New Collectorate Building, Phase-II, 4th Floor, Kutchery Road, Ranchi 4. The Manager (IR)/Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Officer, Near DIG Bunglow, in front of Palamau Hospital, Bye Pass Road, Daltonganj, Palamau 5. The Manager, Food Storage Depot, Food Corporation of India, Ranchi 6. The Manager (Depot), FCI, Food Storage Depot, Daltonganj, Palamau 7. The Depoot Incharge, FCI, Food Storage Depote, Daltonganj, Palamau 8. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, Kolkata, Zonal Office, 10A, Middleton Road, Park Street, Kolkata-71, West Bengal. … … … Respondents.
Legal Reasoning
---------- CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK ----------- : Mr. M.M. Sharma, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate For the Petitioner For the FCI For the EPFO I.A. No. 5603 of 2023 08/17.10.2023 Heard the parties. ---------- 2. At the very outset it has been argued by Mr. M.M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Kolkata is the necessary party in this case as he is the competent authority to sanction and release pension of the petitioner. However, due to inadvertence, petitioner could not implead him as party respondent and as such I.A. No. 5603 of 2023 has been filed. RC 2 3. 4. 5. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the newly added respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve two copies of the writ petition along with annexures upon newly added respondent. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering facts and circumstances of the case, I.A. No. 5603 of 2023 stands allowed. W.P.(S). No. 5024 of 2021 6. 7. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to sanction and finalise pension and other retiral dues and also make payment of amount towards bonus from the year 2013 to 2017 (upto retirement) which has not been paid. It is specific case of the petitioner that petitioner was appointed in the year 1984 and he served the department without any complaint from any quarter and retired on 31.10.2017. After his retirement, he claimed retiral benefits including pension and the amount towards bonus which was not paid to him for the periods 2013 to 2017 but the same has not been paid to him for want of supporting documents. It is specific case of the petitioner that he had already submitted supportive documents for fixation of pension yet pension has not been fixed by the respondents and are throwing the ball from one to another regarding fixation of pension. Being aggrieved, petitioner has been constrained to knock door of this Court. 8. Mr. M.M. Sharma, learned counsel submits that supportive documents regarding fixation of pension has already been submitted before the respondent no. 6 who forwarded the same before the respondent no. 4. It is apparent from the record (Annexure-2, Page-23 of the writ petition) that the respondent no. 4, thereafter, forwarded the entire documents to the respondent no. 1. Even on the direction of the respondents when the documents were submitted, it is moving from one to another officials but the fact remains that the benefits have not been extended, neither pensionary benefits have been fixed. RC 3 9. Learned counsel submits that it is only after filing of the writ petition, the respondents have come up with affidavit that it is the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II who will fix pension of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that from the counter affidavit it appears that in the year 2018 itself, the supporting documents were forwarded to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II for fixation of pension and thus it is the respondent no. 8 who is liable for making payment after fixation of pension. 10. Mr. Shubham Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents – FCI very fairly submits that admittedly petitioner is entitled for the pensionary benefits as he has already superannuated on and from 31.10.2017. Referring the various annexures to the counter affidavit learned counsel submits that the supportive documents regarding fixation of pension has already been submitted before the concerned respondent. Mr. Shubham Sinha further submits that admittedly petitioner was working in Food Corporation of India and he superannuated on 31.10.2017. After his superannuation he is entitled for pensionary benefits along with other benefits. The complete supportive documents were already sent before the respondent no. 8 in the year 2018 itself. If any delay has been caused, the same has been done by the respondent no. 8 and as such appropriate direction may be given to respondent no. 8. 11. Mr. Rupesh Singh, submits that respondent no. 8 has been impleaded as a party respondent today only and counter affidavit could not be filed. Learned counsel submits that if office of respondent no. 8 has received entire supportive documents regarding pensionary benefits, admittedly the pension ought to have been fixed in the year 2018 itself. Learned counsel submits that the matter needs to be inquired. If upon enquiry it is found that respondent no. 8 is liable for not making payment by fixing pensionary benefits, certainly petitioner shall be entitled for the statutory interest in view of delay, if any, caused by the respondent no. 8. If it is found that documents has not yet been received in the office of respondent no. 8, the pension shall be fixed without any interest. RC 4 12. In view of fair submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that pensionary benefits has to be fixed the moment the employee superannuates, if there is no any other legal impediments. Since petitioner has retired in the year 2017 itself, he was entitled for all the benefits including pension in the year 2017 itself. 13. In view of standing orders of the Central Government as well as concerned State Government, in case of 3rd and 4th Grade employees, it is one year prior to retirement, that the pension papers are prepared. Petitioner was a handle labour, working since the year 1984 and superannuated in the year 2017. It has been held and observed in plathora of Judgments by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court that retiral/ pensionary benefits are not bounty to be paid at the hands of the respondents. It is right of an employee to get retiral-cum-pensionary benefits after retirement. Since delay of five years has been caused due to delay and laches on part of the respondents, petitioner is not only entitled for statutory interest but also for penal interest of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to him along with pensionary benefits and other dues forthwith. 14. Even the Food Corporation of India cannot be absolved from non-fixation of pensionary benefits. It is internal matter of the Food Corporation of India along with respondent no. 7 and 8 to decide as to who has to extend the pensionary benefits. Let it be decided between them and whosoever is found liable for causing delay, shall have to pay statutory interest as well as pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 15. The writ petition stands allowed with aforesaid observations and directions. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC