Dismissed

Sunita Devi v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Jharkhand HC16 Dec 2019WPC/265/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed Coal Mines Provident Fund to release pensionary benefits to the petitioner, a compassionate appointee, and dismissed respondent's objection as a question of fact not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Direcstion to release pensionary benefits within four weeks upon recommendation by B.C.C.L.; Second respondent impleaded.

Sunita Devi Vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 265 of 2016

Sunita Devi.

… … …Petitioner

-Versus-

Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhella, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶7

Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhella, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶8

The Dy. General Manager (M), Patherdih Colliery, Eastern Jharia Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. and P.S. Patherdih, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶9

Project Officer, Patherdih Colliery, Eastern Jharia Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. and P.S. Patherdih, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶10

Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. and District-Dhanbad.

¶11

Dhananjay Kumar Singh.

¶12

The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. & Dist. Dhanbad. … …Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK

¶15

For the Petitioner :Ms. Bharti Kumari, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate.

¶16

¶17

09/ 16.12.2019 The petitioner has approached this Court for granting pensionary benefits and provident fund amount which was due to her late husband.

¶18

The petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground by order dated 30.11.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3153 of 2017. This Court while disposing of the writ petition clearly observed:

¶19

“Subject to verification of identity of the petitioner, the provisional appointment letter dated 25.11.2017 is accepted. The petitioner shall be permitted to join her duties, however, until by conclusive evidence it is not established that the petitioner is not the person who was married to the deceased employee namely, Laxmi Narayan Singh, she shall not be removed from service irrespective of term of three months indicated in the appointment letter dated 25.11.2017.”

¶20

In view of the order dated 30.11.2017, the petitioner has continued on the said post and nothing has been brought on record to show that petitioner has impersonated any person and is not the legally wedded wife. The respondent B.C.C.L. as well as C.M.P.F. have not denied the appointment of the petitioner. As the petitioner is continuing on the said post and has been

¶21

¶22

appointed by way of compassion, she is very much entitled for the pensionary benefits also.

¶23

The C.M.P.F. is directed to release all the pensionary benefits to the petitioner as and when recommendation is made by the B.C.C.L. as per the scheme in accordance with law.

¶24

Let the benefits be extended within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶25

One I.A.No. 10526 of 2018 has been filed by Dhananjay Kumar Singh praying therein to implead him as party respondent No.6 which was allowed on 21.01.2019.

¶26

This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to interfere into the disputed question of facts. The respondent No.6 (herein) shall raise all his dispute before the competent court of civil jurisdiction or before any appropriate forum as per the advice.

¶27

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶28

P.K.S.

Sunita Devi v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Devi v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Kumar Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Sunil Kumar Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nagendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagat Narayan Mishra Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary Department Of Industry And Ors.

Smt Samola Devi Vs the Central Coal Fields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Shyam Sundar Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand