MADAN PRASAD Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Court: Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner joined Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization (CMLWO) on 18th August 1964 as a Junior Engineer (Civil). The CMLWO was thereafter abolished by the Coal Mines Welfare Fund (Repeal) Act, 1986 and pursuant to the order dated 22nd September 1986 issued by the Department of Coal, Ministry of Energy, Government of India, all institutions of CMLWO were transferred to subsidiary companies of Coal India Limited and services of all regular full time employees including the officers, stood transferred to the respective coal company with effect from 01st October 1986. At the time of merger, employees of CMLWO were asked to exercise either of the three options namely, Option No. 1- to retain Government service; Option No. 2 - to be absorbed in the Company's pay scales and terms conditions or Option No. 3 - to be absorbed in the Companies but retention of the Government pay scales and service conditions including pensionary benefit.

(3.) On acceptance of the 2nd option i.e. to be absorbed in the company's pay scale and terms and conditions, he joined as a Engineer on 9th September 1988 in the scale of Rs. 1130-2400. The pay fixation chart of the petitioner is annexed as annexure-D to the counter affidavit. Upon exercise of the option, persons who were in the CPC scale were to be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 as Assistant Engineer, whereas the Executive Engineers of Coal India Limited were allowed CIL pay scale of Rs. 1680-2700 in E-III grade. The petitioner consciously exercised the 2nd option. The petitioner thereafter superannuated on 31st January 1998 in the scale of pay applicable to those employees who had exercised option no. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner himself preferred a writ petition being CWJC No. 1844/2000 before this Court alleging that his pension and gratuity were not being paid. By the judgment passed in the said writ petition at annexure-G dated 1st March 2001 after considering the stand of the parties, petitioner was directed to vacate the quarter by 15th April 2001. Respondents were also directed to release gratuity and pay the same to the petitioner by 31st March 2001. Petitioner was also directed not to ask for interest on such gratuity amount. It was observed however that if the petitioner still claims interest, it would be open to the respondent to charge penal rent for the quarter in question for the period the petitioner remained beyond his age of superannuation, which they may adjust from the gratuity. Respondents were also directed to release the admitted pension including arrears within the stipulated period. It is not in dispute that the admissible post retirement dues were paid to the petitioner thereafter.