Kailash Chandra Mukherjee v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Apr 2026Cont.(Cvl)/816/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court contempt closure; Kailash Chandra Mukherjee v. State of Jharkhand, BCCL officials and Regional Director, Coal Mines Provident Fund; compliance of order dated 29.04.2025 in L.P.A. No.362 of 2024; pension fixation and disbursement; pension arrears Rs. 7,63,677; current monthly pension Rs. 7,205 on month-to-month basis; contempt case closed and disposed on 17.04.2026; coram Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad (DB); BCCL; CMPF.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed and disposed of, with directions that the total pension amount including arrears (Rs.7,63,677/-) be paid and the current monthly pension (Rs.7,205/-) be paid month-to-month; pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶¶28

Kailash Chandra Mukherjee Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the directions contained in the order dated 29.04.2025 passed in L.P.A. No.362 of 2024 have been complied with, such that the contempt proceedings may be closed. +1 more

¶¶17

Court's answer

The Court found that although the decision for disbursement of the settled amount had been taken, the actual amount had yet to be received and had not been deposited in the petitioner's respective account.

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed that the total amount towards pension including arrears of pension, amounting to Rs.7,63,677/-, be paid.

¶¶26

Key takeaways

The Court further directed that the current pension amount of Rs.7,205/- be paid on month-to-month basis.ratio¶¶27
Having regard to the compliance position and the payment directions, the instant contempt case was closed and disposed of.ratio¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Case (Cvl.) No. 816 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Division Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad, JJ.), decided 17.04.2026. Filed for alleged wilful and deliberate non-compliance of the order dated 29.04.2025 passed in L.P.A. No.362 of 2024 concerning fixation and disbursement of pension to a retired BCCL employee. Counsel for BCCL and CMPF represented that the compliance directions had been carried out; the Court observed that the decision for disbursement had been taken but the actual amount had yet to be deposited in the petitioner's account. The Court directed payment of the total pension amount including arrears of Rs.7,63,677/- and current monthly pension of Rs.7,205/- on month-to-month basis, and accordingly closed and disposed of the contempt case along with pending interlocutory application(s).

¶1

2026:JHHC:10947-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Cvl.) No.816 of 2025

¶3

------

¶4

Kailash Chandra Mukherjee aged about 66 years son of Late Lakhan Chandra Mukherje resident of village Nabagram, P.O. Nidhi, P.S. Raghunathpur, District Purulia, West Bengal

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State of Jharkhand.

¶8

2. Sri Sita Ram pandey Chairman Cum Managing Director M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Office at Koyla Nagar, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.

¶9

3. Sri Samiran Dutta Chief Manager (P) MP & R, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Office at Koyla Nagar, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.

¶10

4. Sri Santosh Kumar Singh The General Manager (PF/Pension) M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Office at Koyla Nagar, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.

¶11

5. Sri Santosh Kumar Singh The General Manager, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited. Office at Koyla Nagar, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.

¶12

6. Sri M.K Ramaish The Area Personnel Manager. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Govindpur Area III, P.O. and P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad.

¶13

7. Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra Regional Director, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Regional office D-II, Office at Hirapur, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. ..... .... Opp. Parties

¶14

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶15

For the Petitioner For the State For the BCCL For the CMPF	------ : Mr. Akshya Kr. Mahato, Advocate : Ms. Ruchi Mukti, AC to AAG-IA : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate Mr. Shubham Malviya, Advocate : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Karbir, Advocate ------

¶16

06/Dated: 17.04.2026

¶17

1. The instant contempt case has been filed for alleged, willful and deliberate non-compliance of the order dated 29.04.2025 passed in L.P.A. No.362 of 2024.

¶18

2. Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-BCCL has submitted that the first direction which pertains to fixation of pension and its disbursement has already been complied with by depositing the part of contribution of the

¶19

¶20

2026:JHHC:10947-DB

¶21

employer in the P.F. account as well as pension account and the petitioner has also contributed the equal amount.

¶22

3. Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the Opp. Party-CMPF has also submitted that the order has been carried out.

¶23

4. Mr. Akshay Kr. Mahato, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order in its letter and spirit has been complied with.

¶24

5. It appears from the documents which have been handed over to the petitioner that the decision for disbursement of the aforesaid amount has been taken. But the actual amount has yet to be received, since, it has not been deposited in the respective account of the petitioner.

¶25

6. Upon this, Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the Opp. Party-CMPF has submitted, based upon the aforesaid decision, that the amount, as has been settled, would be transmitted positively in the bank account of the petitioner in between the period from 1^st May, 2026 to 15^th May, 2026.

¶26

7. Let the total amount towards pension including arrears of pension amounting to Rs.7,63,677/- be paid.

¶27

8. Let the current pension amount to the tune of Rs.7,205/- be also paid on month-to-month basis.

¶28

9. Accordingly, the instant contempt case is closed and as such, disposed of.

¶29

10. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶30

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶31

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)