Disposed

Bhima v. the Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Jharkhand HC10 Mar 2021WPC/445/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the respondent company to prompt the petitioner to file a fresh representation regarding pay protection and pension benefits. A decision was mandated within specific timelines following the fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file fresh representation within three weeks and decide under NCWA within eight weeks thereafter.

Bhima Vs the Central Coalfields Limited… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 445 of 2021

¶3

Bhima, aged about 61 years, son of Prayag Mahto, resident of M.D.S. 448, Roler Chowk, Near W.T.P., P.O. Argada, P.S. Ramgarh, DistrictRamgarh … Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, PO Darbhanga House, PS Kotwali,District Ranchi

¶6

The General Manager, Argada Area, Sirka, Central Coalfields Limited, PO Argada, PS Ramgarh, District Ramgarh

¶7

The Project Officer, Sirka Colliery, Central Coalfields Limited, PO Argada, PS Ramgarh, District Ramgarh

¶8

The Staff Officer (P&A), Argada Area, Central Coalfields Limited, PO Argada, PS Ramgarh, District Ramgarh … Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the Respondent-CCL : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate -----

¶11

03/10.03.2021. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL.

¶12

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit.

¶13

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to grant benefit of pay protection of Rs.44.98/- on account of him being appointed as Category-III, trammer and receiving basic pay of Rs.40.78/- on the date of appointment i.e. on 01.01.1990, which is lower as compared to the salary receiver by him as on 01.01.1987, the period when he was working as piece rated employee. The further prayer is made to

¶14

-2-

¶15

grant the consequential benefits of protected pay of Rs.44.98/-, w.e.f. 01.01.1990, in the nature of arrears of salary and to pay enhanced basic pay w.e.f. December, 1996. The prayer is also made to fix, finalize and pay the pension and gratuity of the petitioner at enhanced rate, along with arrears on the basis of improved salary position, as prayed for in the prayers above for the period of last 10 months of petitioner’s service immediately before his retirement and period of which the salary is accounted for calculation of pensionary and gratuity benefits.

¶16

The petitioner was appointed as piece rated employee on permanent basis by the respondent authority on 01.09.1982 and got retired on 31.08.2019. The petitioner has performed the duties for the respondent authorities to their utmost satisfaction and without any complaint. The name of the petitioner figures in Form-B. The petitioner has preferred the representation before the authorities for such relief, contained in Annexure-2 of the writ petition, but no decision has been taken on that.

¶17

Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent-CCL submits that the matter can be disposed of and the authority will decide the representation of the petitioner.

¶18

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the respondent no.3 within three weeks from today. If such representation is filed within aforesaid period, respondent no.3 will take a decision in accordance with NCWA and the provisions made thereunder within 8 weeks thereafter.

¶19

-3-

¶20

It goes without saying that if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, the benefit of the same shall be extended to the petitioner within further period of 8 weeks thereafter.

¶21

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands

¶22

disposed of.

¶23

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶24

Ajay/

Bhima v. the Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhima v. the Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

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

Vikash Chandra Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs Union Of India Through Director General Central Reserve Police Force And Ors.

Biswajit Gorai Vs Health

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through Secretary Education and Human Resources

Rajesh Hadi Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority Represented through Its Managing Director

Anil Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand