Disposed

Sundar Yadav v. The Union Of India Through Assistant General Manager Food Corporation Of India And Ors.

Jharkhand HC18 Nov 2017WPC/3411/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of a writ petition filed by a retired employee seeking finalization of his pension and bonus. The court directed the competent authority to decide on these claims within twelve weeks and to forward the admissible amounts to the Provident Fund Commissioner for release.

What did the court decide?

To decide pension and bonus claims within twelve weeks and release admissible amounts.

Sundar Yadav Vs The Union Of India Through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3411 of 2017

Sundar Yadav

-----Petitioner

Versus

The Union of India through Assistant General Manager,

¶6

Food Corporation of India

¶7

The General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Ranchi

¶8

The Manager, C.P.F., Food Corporation of India, Kolkata

¶9

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Employee, Provident Fund Organization, Ranchi

¶10

The Manager, Food Corporation of India, Food Storage Depot, Daltonganj ----- Respondents

¶11

CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

¶12

For the Petitioner: Mr. M.M. Sharma, Advocate For the Resp - FCI: Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate For the Resp No. 4: Mr. Anil Kr. Singh, Advocate

¶13

02/ 18.11.2017 Heard counsel for the parties.

¶14

Petitioner has retired on 31.10.2012 from the post of Handling Labour while working in the office of the Manager, Food Corporation of India, Food Storage Depot, Daltonganj (Respondent no. 5). His pension has not yet been finalized. He has also raised a claim for bonus for the period 2011-2012.

¶15

According to the petitioner, he has served the Corporation since his appointment on regular basis in the year 1984 on the same post and has also received salary as revised from time to time by the Corporation. According to him, C.P.F. amount was deducted from his salary and was paid with interest. Gratuity and Group Insurance has also been paid. He has made representation for finalization of his pension in a duly filled up prescribed proforma with supporting documents, duly forwarded by the Respondent No. 5, but the same remains due. He is facing financial hardship and has therefore represented also before coming to this Court.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Respondent FCI Mr. Nipun Bakshi submits that the claim of the petitioner for pension which is under C.P.F. Contributory Scheme would be considered by the competent authority within a reasonable time and the matter would be forwarded to the Provident Fund authorities for release of the admissible

¶17

¶18

dues. Claim towards bonus would also be considered by the Respondents.

¶19

Taking note of the relevant factual matrix of the case, as borne out from the pleadings, without making any comments on the admissibility of the claim at this Stage, writ petition is being disposed of with a direction to the competent authority / General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Ranchi (Respondent No. 2) to take a decision in respect of the aforesaid claim towards pension and bonus of the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a detailed representation containing supporting documents as well and copy of this order. Dependent upon the decision so taken, if the claim is found admissible, relevant record be forwarded to the office of the Respondent No. 4 - Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Employee, Provident Fund Organization, Ranchi for finalization of the pension claim. Office of the Provident Fund Commissioner after due scrutiny of the claim of the petitioner if he is found entitled to the claim, would release the admissible pension along with its arrear within a reasonable time thereafter. The admissible claim towards bonus, if any, be also released by the Respondent No. 2, as per the decision taken, within a reasonable time. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶20

( Aparesh Kumar Singh, J )

¶21

Ranjeet/

Sundar Yadav v. The Union Of India Through Assistant General Manager Food Corporation Of India And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundar Yadav v. The Union Of India Through Assistant General Manager Food Corporation Of India And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Camry Developers Through Its Proprietor Vinod Jindal Vs Smt Shefali Roy

Rcm Infrastructure Limited through Its Managing Director Sri Koneru Subbiah Chowdry Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Genesis Represented by Its Proprietor Sri Prahlad Kakar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Dhananjay Kumar Srivastava Vs Welfare

Ramashish Sharma Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Dinesh Prasad Singh Vs Education