Jiblal Mahato Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 444 of 2023

Jiblal Mahato aged about 59 yrs. S/o Late Wakil Mahato, R/o Bhaowra 16 no. Jharria, Kanchanpur, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District. Dhanbad … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director having its Office at Koyala Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. Jagjivan Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District - Dhanbad.

¶6

Director Personal (P&IR), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. having its Office at Koyala Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. Jagjivan Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District - Dhanbad.

¶7

Project Officer, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Amal Joyrampur Colliery, Bagdidi Section, P.O. & P.S. Joyrampur, District- Dhanbad. … … Respondents

¶8

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶9

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate : Mr. Abhinay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate ---

¶10

10 /13.03.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

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

¶12

“That the petitioner by way of instant petition prays for quashing of the notice of superannuation issued under the signature of Project Officer Amal Joyrampur Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL) vide reference no. BCCL/BAR/2023/760 dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure-4) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been informed that he would be completing 60 years of age on 21.01.2023 and hence he would be superannuating from service on 31.01.2023 and he had been advised to fill the statutory forms which are available in the office of undersigned in respect of gratuity, provident fund, pension etc.”

¶13

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per

¶14

the records of the respondents, the statutory Form – “B” (register maintained by the respondents under the Mines Rules) , the age of the petitioner has been recorded as 22 years as on 02.11.1985 and therefore, the petitioner was due to retire on 30.11.2023. The learned counsel has further submitted that the respondents, vide letter dated 16.12.2022, informed the petitioner that the petitioner would retire on 31.01.2023. He submits that the petitioner represented against the

¶15

2

¶16

same and when no action was taken, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶17

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is the respondents who are disputing the date of birth of the petitioner at the fag end of his service and on the basis of statutory Form – “B” register, there can be no dispute in connection with the date of birth of the petitioner.

¶18

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that as per the Circular issued by Coal India Limited (Annexure-10) dated 23^rd August 2022, it has been decided that the retirement notices should be issued one year prior to the scheduled date of retirement; in the present case, the retirement notice has been issued on 16.12.2022 giving the date of retirement as 31.01.2023 and therefore, the action of the respondents is in violation of the Circular issued by Coal India Limited.

¶19

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that had the notice been issued at relevant point of time, the petitioner would have approached this Court and would have continued in service till his actual date of retirement, but as the Circular of Coal India Limited was not followed, the petitioner filed the writ petition prior to retirement, but during the pendency of this case, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation even if the date of birth declared by the petitioner and recorded in form -B is taken to be correct.

¶20

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the counter-affidavit indicates that the petitioner had submitted the PS-3 Form giving the particulars of his family members and PS-4 Form giving the nomination and in the said

¶21

3

¶22

forms, there have been cuttings. The learned counsel has submitted that the aforesaid forms were filled in the year 2000 and therefore, the date of birth of the petitioner has been rightly taken and the petitioner has been rightly issued the superannuation notice.

¶23

8. Learned counsel for the respondents, during the course of hearing, submits that the copy of statutory Form – “B” annexed along with the writ petition is not a disputed document and said form -B shows the age of the petitioner being 22 years as on 02.11.1985.

¶24

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the recording of the age of the petitioner as 22 years as on 02.11.1985 in statutory Form – “B” register under Mines Rules, is not in dispute. It however appears that the petitioner was served with notice of superannuation on 16.12.2022 showing his date of superannuation on 31.01.2023. Apparently, the superannuation notice was issued at the fag end of his service carrier and one-year advance notice in terms of the circular (Annexure- 10) has not been issued to the petitioner one year prior to the scheduled date of retirement. The petitioner had represented against the said superannuation notice, but no decision was taken by the respondents and just a few days prior to his age of superannuation the petitioner filed the writ petition on 28.01.2023 and in the meantime, the petitioner was made to retire on 31.01.2023.

¶25

10. This Court finds that the issuance of superannuation notice just a little more than one month prior to 31.01.2023 is in violation of the Circular of the Coal India Limited (Annexure-10). 11. This Court also finds that the Form – “B” which is a statutory Register of Employee, the entries made therein are not in dispute.

¶26

4

¶27

However, the respondents have tried to justify their action by referring to aforesaid PS – 3 and PS- 4 Forms which is declaration regarding particulars of family and details for nomination.

¶28

12. This Court is of the considered view that the Form – B register which has been filled up at the time of entry of the petitioner in service cannot be disputed by the respondents.

¶29

13. It appears from the records of this case that it is the respondents who have tried to disturb the date of superannuation of the petitioner by issuing the notice dated 16.12.2022 although as per the statutory records of the respondents- form B , the date of superannuation of the petitioner would have been 30.11.2023.

¶30

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner on 31.01.2023 instead of 30.11.2023 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶31

15. Consequently, the impugned superannuation notice dated 16.12.2022 is set-aside and the date of retirement of the petitioner is to be taken as 30.11.2023 with all consequential benefit but back wages only to the extent of 50%. The 50% back wages be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of representation along with a copy of this order, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum till the date of payment.

¶32

16. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶33

17. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶34

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶35

Pankaj

Jiblal Mahato v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jiblal Mahato v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravindra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rekha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Badri Nath Roy Vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited Represented through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Rani Devi Vs the Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Jharkhand State Electricity Board Now Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through MD Shabir Ansari Vs Balki Devi