Petitioner seeking direction to pay unpaid retirement dues. Court found arbitrary non-payment and directed respondent to re-calculate dues and pay within four weeks, with interest if delayed.
Respondent directed to re-calculate legally payable amounts and pay within four weeks; 6% interest from date of retirement if not paid.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S).No. 3037 of 2017
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
08/ 10.02.2020 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner has moved this Court with a prayer for direction to the respondents to pay the retiral dues which is not paid till date, with 12% interest.
3. The case of the petitioner lies in narrow compass. Petitioner working on the post of Ex-loading Inspector, superannuated on 31.08.2009. After retirement, he obtained ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the respondent-BCCL. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though he superannuated on 31.08.2009, but the legally payable dues have not been paid and as such, he made several representations before the respondent-authorities to pay the same but the same has been denied on one or the other ground. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has received only Rs.6,03,536/- only under the head of gratuity though he is entitled for Rs.10,00,000/- under the said head but the said amount has not been paid even after seven years of his retirement. Further petitioner is also entitled for LTC/LLTC, leave encashment as per NCWA-VIII but the respondents have arbitrarily not calculated the balance amount and the same has not been paid till date. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this writ application.
4. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for Rs.3,96,464/- under the head of gratuity, as he has received Rs.6,03,536/- only. Further, petitioner is also entitled for Rs.6,298/under the head of PLRS; LTC/ LLTC Rs.21,892/-; leave encashment Rs.63,926/and also the amount due under the head of SLW. Further, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that total amount of Rs.4,82,116/- is due to the
2
petitioner and as such, respondent-BCCL be directed to pay the said amount along with statutory interest.
5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that admittedly, the petitioner retired in the year 2009 but he obtained ‘No Objection Certificate’ in the year 2013, after vacating the said quarter. Mr. Das draws the attention of the Court towards para-8 and submits that as per Company’s rule, the admitted amount of gratuity i.e. Rs.6,03,536/- has been paid to the petitioner vide Cheque No. 564576 and no further amount is due under the said head. Further, an amount of Rs.15,648/- has been paid to the petitioner vide Cheque No. 356550. The petitioner has been paid his claim towards LTC in the year 2007 and an amount of Rs.6298/- has been paid towards leave encashment. It has also been submitted by Mr. Das that an amount of Rs.97,300/- is still recoverable from the petitioner against the unpaid rent and as such, liberty may be given to the respondents to recover the said amount from the retiral benefits of the petitioner.
6. Be that as it may, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, this Court is of the considered opinion that case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, petitioner retired in the year 2009 but till date the full amount payable under the head of post retiral benefits have not been paid to him. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents that as petitioner has retained the official quarters, the amount has been recovered from the retiral benefits and still Rs.97,300/- is due to be recovered from the petitioner, is not acceptable to this Court, as never any notice was issued to the petitioner regarding recovery to be made from petitioner. It was incumbent upon the respondents to proceed in accordance with law, if at all the petitioner has retained the official quarter. Arbitrariness on the part of the respondent-BCCL is admitted. The respondentauthorities are directed to re-calculate the amount legally payable to the petitioner under different heads and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further the respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with, if any amount is recoverable from the petitioner.
3
7. Let it be made clear that if the aforesaid amount is not paid within a period of four weeks, the same shall carry 6% interest from the date of retirement of the petitioner.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
kunal/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent is directed to recalculate and pay outstanding retiral dues including gratuity, LTC, and leave encashment.
Whether interest shall be charged if dues are not paid within the stipulated period.
Petitioner (Ex-loading Inspector)
BCCL
Dr. S.N.Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
