Jagannath Bhagat Vs the Chairman Coal India Ltd. Cil

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 1192 of 2023

¶3

Jagannath Bhagat (65 years) s/o Late Mahanand Bhagat r/o Jagdish Nagar, Ramgarh Cantt. Near Mount Letrra School P.O. P.S. District Ramgarh.

¶4

Bharat Lal Ram (63 years) s/o Late Birbal Ravidas r/o Near Washery Road Bhuchungdih P.O. P.S. Rajrappa District Ramgarh. 3. Deoki Mahto(65yrs) s/o Late Manas Mahto r/o Near Kali Mandir Sukrigada P.O. Chhotki Lari P.S. Patratu District Ramgarh.

¶5

Amal Kumar Bhattacharjee (65 years) s/o Late Bijen Bihari Bhattacharjee residing at Apartment no. 104 Gymkhana Club Hanuman Nagar Bariatu Road PO, P.S.Bariatu District Ranchi 5. M. G. Rabbani (63 years) w/o Late Malik Wahazuddin Rabbani r/o Neemtola Near Jama Masjid P.O. Chitarpur P.S. District Ramgarh 6. Bheklal Ram (63yrs) s/o Late Kishori Ram r/o B-7/4 Officer Colony Sandi P.O, P.S. Rajrappa District Ramgarh.

¶6

Kalim Ansari( 64yrs) s/o Late Gyasuddin Ansari r/o 126 near Bank of India, Maganpur P.O. Maganpur P.S Rajrappa District Ramgarh. 8. Pradeep Kumar(65yrs) s/o Late Dasi Ram r/o Near Footbal Maidan Rajrappa Project P.O. P.S. Rajrappa District Ramgarh. 9. Anil Kumar Choudhary (65years) s/o Late Gobardhan Choudhary r/o Mahto tola P.O. P.S. Rajrappa, District Ramgarh. 10. Murlidhar Ram (65years) s/o Late Kishun Ram r/o Churchu P.O. Ichak, P.S. Churchu District Ramgarh.

¶7

Lalit Choudhary (65 Years) s/o Late Bhuneshwar Choudhary r/o Rajrappa Road Sandi, Near DAV school P.O. Chitarpur P.S. and District Ramgarh. 12. Sahadat Ansari (57 years) s/o Late Ali Baksh, r/o Village Damodih P.O. Barkagaon P.S. Barkagaon District Ramgarh. 13. Dashmi Manjhian (65years) w/o Late Hilal Manjhi r/o Rajrappa Project, P.O. P.S. Rajrappa Project District Ramgarh 14. Praful Kr. Sao(65yrs) s/o Late Nakul Ram Sao r/o Hamad P.O. Karma, P.S Kasmar, District Ramgarh. 15. Mutu Mahto( 63years) s/o Late Bhagu Mahto r/o village Ergua, P.O. Arjuwa P.S. and District Bokaro 16. Nishar Ahmad Khan (65yrs) s/o Late Sikandar Khan, Tipu Road Near Badi Talb P.O. P.S. Rajrappa Dist Ramgarh.

¶8

Prith Nath Choudhary (65 years) s/o Late Heeralal Choudhary r/o 47, Rajrappa Road, Near DAV School Sandi P.O P.S. Rajrappa District Ramgarh. 18. Abdul Samad (65 years) s/o Late Md. Yakub r/o Chari Near Mazaar P.O. P.S.Chari District Ramgarh. 19. Arjun Singh (65yrs) s/o Late Shiv Govind Singh r/o Near Football Ground Rajrappa Road Sandi P.O. P.S Patratu District Ramgarh

¶9

Jagdish Kewat (60 yrs) s/o Late Hiru Kewat r/o Bhuchungdih P.O. P.S. Rajrappa District Ramgarh 21. Srikant Choudhary (65yrs) s/o Late Grijnath Choudhary r/o village Sandi Near Madai, P.O. P.S. Rajrappa District Ramgarh.

¶10

Irfan Ullah (65yrs) s/o Late Md. Sah r/o Rahmat Nagar Chitarpur, P.O. P.S. Chitarpur District Ramgarh. 23. Dashrath Mahto (64yrs) s/o Late Turu Mahto, r/o Mahto tola Chhotkipona P.O. Barkipona, District Ramgarh.

¶11

2

¶12

Ram Sundar Mahto (64yrs) s/o Late Bisu Mahto r/o Muri Road Dabhatu P.O. Kumhardaga P.S. Gola District Ramgarh.

¶13

Amrit Kumar (65yrs) s/o Late Fulchand Sao r/o Near Durga Mandir Rajrappa Project, Sandi, P.O. Rajrappa District Ramgarh

¶14

Narendra Kumar Pathak (65yrs) s/o Late Jashoda Nandan Pathak Nehru Road Bangalitola P.O. P.S District Ramgarh.

¶15

Versus

¶16

The Chairman Coal India Ltd. (CIL) Coal Bhavan Kolkata, 56, Netaji Subhash Road Road fairley Place, BBD Baph, Kolkata, West Bengal, P.O. and P.S. BBD Baph, Dist. Kolkata, West Bengal, PIN 700001

¶17

The Chairman Cum Managing Director Central Coalfield Ltd.(CCL) Darbhanga House Ranchi P.O. GPO P.S. Sadar District Ranchi.

¶18

The Project Officer Rajrappa Project (CIL) P.O. P.S. Rajrappa District Ramgarh.

¶19

The General Manager Rajrappa Area (CIL) P.O. P.S. Rajrappa District Ramgarh … … Respondents

¶20

¶21

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶22

For the Petitioners : Mr. H. K. Mahto, Advocate : Mrs. Ahalya Mahto, Advocate : Ms. Jyotsna Mahato, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate ---

¶23

06 /05.03.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶24

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶25

“ For issuance of appropriate writ/orders/direction commanding upon the respondents to pay due gratuity (Rs. 10-20 lakhs) to the petitioners as per the admissibility to each of them with respect to their rank/cadre/amount to be accredited in accordance with Rule as the same has not been paid to them till date and is pending arbitrarily.”

¶26

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the petitioners have attained the age of superannuation during the period from 01.01.2017 to 29.03.2018. He further submits that vide office memorandum dated 10^th July 2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of Public Enterprises certain directions have been issued with regard to payment of gratuity to employees of Central Public Service Enterprises. Learned counsel has submitted that petitioners are covered under clause 2(a) of the said circular. But the petitioners are

¶27

3

¶28

not being given the gratuity in terms of the office memorandum dated 10^th July 2018. He submits that a representation has also been filed vide Annexure-3 but no decision has been taken.

¶29

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while opposing the prayer has submitted that the petitioners are not covered by clause 2(a) and as per the representation as contained in Annexure-3 the petitioners have raised a grievance for payment of arrears of gratuity amount (Rs. 10-20 Lakhs) to the non-executives. The learned counsel submits that as per the said circular, executives and non-unionized supervisor of Central Public Service Enterprises and the petitioners fall under the category of workmen and therefore they fall under unionized category and they are members of labour union and their wages are governed by National Coal Wage Agreement. The learned counsel has submitted that as per the counter affidavit, no directives in connection with the persons like the petitioners has been received from their headquarter and therefore certain communications have also been issued to the workmen stating that in absence of any directives no instruction have been received from Coal India Limited with regard to any further payment to the petitioners.

¶30

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials on record, this court finds that in the writ petition there is no averment as to whether the petitioners are covered under clause 2(a) of the Office memorandum dated 10^th July 2018. Admittedly the petitioners do not fall under executive category and by virtue of representation as contained in Annexure-3, it appears that the petitioners are claiming under non-executive category. However, it is still not clear as to whether the petitioners would fall under nonunionized supervisors as mentioned in clause 2(a).

¶31

6. From the perusal of counter affidavit, it appears that a representation was filed by the petitioners under joint signature for payment of difference of gratuity for the period from 01.01.2017 to 29.03.2018 and some of the petitioners were informed vide letter dated 11.01.2023 that no instruction has been received regarding such payment to the persons like the petitioners.

¶32

4

¶33

7. From the perusal of the records it appears that there is an element of uncertainty with regard to the claim of the petitioners and such uncertainty is first required to be clarified by taking a decision as to whether the petitioners would be covered by clause 2(a) of the office memorandum dated 10^th July 2018 as contained in Annexure1/3 of the writ petition and if they are found to be covered by that circular, there is no reason for not making payment in terms of the said circular. However, if the petitioners are not covered by that circular, then also, there is a need for clarity with regard to their entitlement on payment of gratuity. If the petitioners are governed by any wage agreement, the impact of such agreement is also required to be considered.

¶34

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioners to approach the respondent no. 4 by filing a detailed representation along with a copy of the writ records. The representation should clearly indicate the nature of employment of each and every petitioner so as to enable the respondent no. 4 to decide as to whether one or the other petitioners fall within the category of clause 2(a) of the office memorandum dated 10^th July 2018.

¶35

9. Upon such representations, the respondent no. 4 is directed to pass a reasoned order within a period of four months from the date of such representation upon verification of the records and after granting an opportunity of hearing to one representative of the petitioners. The reasoned order be communicated to each of the petitioners through speed post at the address to be provided by the petitioners in their representations.

¶36

10. If one or the other petitioner is found entitled in terms of clause 2(a) of the office memorandum dated 10^th July 2018, appropriate follow up order(s) be passed so that the monetary benefit arising out of the same is remitted to the concerned petitioner(s) within a period of three months from the reasoned order.

¶37

11. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶38

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶39

Binit

Jagannath Bhagat v. the Chairman Coal India Ltd. Cil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagannath Bhagat v. the Chairman Coal India Ltd. Cil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Ejazul Haque Vs the State of Jharkhand

Awadhesh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Principal Secretary Higher Technical Education and Skill Development

Govind Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand

Indradeo Pandit Vs State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Deptt of Higher and Technical Education

Sunita Devi Vs Central Coal Fields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Sushila Devi Vs Central Coal Fields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director