The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No.277 of 2021 With Cont. Case (Civil) Nos.294, 295, 399, 598, 863 & 896/2021 With Cont. Case (Civil) Nos.81, 177, 367, 463, 484, 561 & 681/2022 ----- Sunil Kumar Singh Kanti Devi Arjun Paswan Kaushalya Kumari Mahto Mahendra Dom Arun Kumar Karn Mithilesh Kumar Chiranji Lal Begi Dilip Kumar Haider Ali 1. Shashi Ranjan Kumar 2. Ravi Ranjan Kumar 3. Poonam Kumari Deo Nandan Prasad Roy Mithilesh Kumar Singh Durgesh Kumar Sinha .......... Petitioner. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.277 of 2021] .......... Petitioner. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.294 of 2021] .......... Petitioner. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.295 of 2021] .......... Petitioner. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.399 of 2021] .......... Petitioner. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.598 of 2021] .......... Petitioner. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.863 of 2021] .......... Petitioner. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.896 of 2021] .......... Petitioner. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.81 of 2022] .......... Petitioner. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.177 of 2022] .......... Petitioner. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.367 of 2022] .......... Petitioners. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.463 of 2022] .......... Petitioner. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.484 of 2022] .......... Petitioner. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.561 of 2022] .......... Petitioner. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.681 of 2022] -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. A. Dubey, Managing Director, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad. .......... Opp. Parties. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.277 of 2021] 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Indresh Shukla, Secretary, Jharkhand Mineral 3. Area Development Authority, Dhanbad. 4. Dilip Kumar, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad. 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Indresh Shukla, Managing Director, Jharkhand Mineral .......... Opp. Parties. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.294 of 2021] Area Development Authority, Dhanbad. .......... Opp. Parties. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.295 of 2021] 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Indresh Shukla, Secretary, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad. .......... Opp. Parties. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.399 of 2021] 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Dilip Kumar, Managing Director, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad. .......... Opp. Parties. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.598 of 2021] 2 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Satendra Kumar, Managing Director, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad. .......... Opp. Parties. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.863 of 2021] 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Indresh Shukla, Secretary, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad. .......... Opp. Parties. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.896 of 2021] 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Indresh Shukla, Secretary, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad. .......... Opp. Parties. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.81 of 2022] 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Satyendra Kumar, Managing Director, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad. .......... Opp. Parties. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.177 of 2022] 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Indresh Kumar, Managing Director, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad. .......... Opp. Parties. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.367 of 2022] 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Satyendra Kumar, Managing Director, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad. .......... Opp. Parties. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.463 of 2022] 1. Satendra Kumar, Managing Director, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad. 2. State of Jharkhand .......... Opp. Parties. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.484 of 2022] 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kanchan Bala Sinha, Secretary, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad. .......... Opp. Parties. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.561 of 2022] 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Satyendra Kumar, Managing Director, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad. .......... Opp. Parties. [In Cont. Case (Civil) NO.681 of 2022]
Legal Reasoning
----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioners : For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, Advocate Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate Mr. P. K. Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Baibhaw Gahlout, Advocate Mrs. Shatakshi, Advocate Ms. Neha Pandey, A.C. to Sr. S.C. III Ms. Shilpi, A.C. to S.C.(Mines)-II Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee, A.C. to G.A. V Mr. Pradeep Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G. IV Mr. Shivam Anand Pathak, A.C. to S.C. III Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, A.C. to G.A. III Mr. Rahul Dev, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-III Mr. Zaid Imam, A.C. to S.C. VII Mr. Divyam, A.C. to S.C. IV Mr. Saurav Mahto, A.C. to G.P. II Mr. Rahul, Saboo, G.P. I Mrs. Shrestha Mehta, A.C. to S.C. II Mr. S. Ahmed, A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-I 3 For Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, A.C. to Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, Advocate ----- Order No.08 Date: 25.08.2023 1. The petitioners, who are retired employees of the opposite party- Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad/ heirs of the deceased employee, have filed the present contempt cases alleging disobedience/non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court in different writ petitions. 2. Show cause affidavits have been filed on behalf of the opposite party- Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad (hereinafter to be referred as ‘JMADA’) in all the contempt cases, stating that it has got total liability of Rs.1,26,19,86,376/- concerning retiral dues and death-cum-retiral dues. The JMADA has been making payment of retiral dues and death-cum-retiral benefits including the difference of amount of the said benefits from its internal resources. Water supply is the most important source of internal revenue of the JMADA and it earns almost Rs.5.50 crores amount from water supply sources in every three months. The payments are being made to the employees from the said earning. The JMADA has made payment to 1080 retired employees and their dependents. 3. Copies of the reasoned orders passed by the Managing Director, Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad have also been annexed with the respective show cause affidavits, according to which the details of total admissible amount payable to the petitioners as well as amount already paid to them are as under:- Name of the petitioner(s) Payable amount Already paid (in total) amount Sunil Kumar Singh Rs.20,05,777/- Rs.2,00,000/- Kanti Devi Arjun Paswan Rs.5,07,190/- Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.11,07,683/- Rs.3,50,000/- Kaushalya Kumari Mahto Rs.6,53,256/- Rs.1,50,000/- Mahendra Dom Rs.1,24,910/- Rs.50,000/- Arun Kumar Karn Rs.3,32,272/- Rs.2,00,000/- Mithilesh Kumar Chiranji Lal Begi Dilip Kumar Haider Ali Rs.19,58,096/- Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.20,69,955/- Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.12,28,941/- Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.16,17,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- 4 Shashi Ranjan Kumar Rs.28,64,056/- Rs.2,00,000/- Ravi Ranjan Kumar Punam Kumari Deo Nandan Prasad Roy Rs.6,70,622/- Rs.50,000/- Mithilesh Kumar Singh Rs.15,13,700/- Rs.1,50,000/- Durgesh Kumar Sinha Rs.30,96,054/- Rs.2,50,000/- 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the JMADA fairly submits that JMADA will strictly follow the timeline provided under the scheme for payment of balance amount of retiral and other admissible dues to the petitioners. At this juncture, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner of Cont. Case (Civil) No.863 of 2021 submits that JMADA has wrongly calculated Rs.3,32,272/- only as the total payable amount to the said petitioner. In fact, as per the calculation of the petitioner, the total payable amount to him is much higher than the said amount. Be that as it may. Since the opposite party- JMADA by filing show cause affidavits in all the contempt cases have given the details of total amount payable to the petitioners as well as the amount already paid to them towards retiral and other admissible dues and the learned counsel for the JMADA has also assured this Court that the JMADA will continue to pay the balance amount to the petitioners as per the timeline of existing scheme, there is no reason to further proceed in these matters. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite party- Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority is hereby dropped.
Decision
These contempt cases are, accordingly, disposed of. The petitioner of Cont. Case no.863 of 2021 is, however, at liberty to represent the Managing Director, JMADA raising his objection against the calculation total payable amount of Rs.3,32,272/- to him. On receipt of the same, the said authority of JMADA shall get the said claim/objection verified as per the record and shall dispose of the same within four weeks from the date of filing of the objection. Sanjay/ (Rajesh Shankar, J.)