GURUSHARAN MAHTO Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/order(s)/direction(s) to the respondents to allow the pro rata pension after reckoning the period of service on Muster Roll from 01.01.1974 to 01.09.1986 and further prays that notwithstanding the order of learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 320 of 2004, prayer of the petitioner for extending the benefit has not been acceded to but the same has been rejected vide Annexure 2 to the writ application.

(2.) The facts, as revealed and stated in the writ application in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed on Muster Roll for the period 01.01.1974 to 06.04.1977 under Coal Mines Welfare Organization and thereafter from 06.05.1977 to 11.11.1979 on monthly rated scale and basic scale, on which, the petitioner has also availed the Dearness Allowance as applicable under the Coal Mines Welfare Organization. Thereafter, the petitioner was given the post of Fitter from 19.11.1979 to 19.11.1984 and finally merged with Central Coalfields Limited and the petitioner was posted at Jawahar Nagar in Generator Room, Kanke, Ranchi as such the petitioner rendered the entire service from the very inception exceeding 12 years and hence, the petitioner is entitled to pro rata pension, as per the norms and Rules fixed by Ministry of Coal and Mines, Government of India. It is stated in the writ application that the petitioner moved the learned Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an application bearing O.A. No. 320 of 2004 with a prayer to allow pro rata pension to the petitioner as he has rendered services exceeding 12 years, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.12.2004, under Annexure 1 to the writ application, with a direction to the respondents to give due consideration of the case of the applicant/ writ petitioner with reference to record as available with them and also with reference to the decision given by Tribunal in O.A. No. 1015 of 2002 within a period of six months. In pursuance to direction of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 320 of 2004, Government of India, Ministry of Coal vide its office order dated 21.05.2005, under Annexure 2 to the writ application, has been pleased to pass order rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It is further stated in the writ application that one P.C. Mallik, Executive Engineer, C.M.W. Works, Dhanbad issued a Memorandum dated 7.5.1977, under Annexure 3 to the writ application, wherein the date of appointment of the petitioner on Muster Roll is shown as 01.01.1974 and in the column (7) of the said Memorandum, it has been stated that for the purpose of service seniority and pensionary benefit, the service shall be counted on and from 01.01.1974 forenoon. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour addressed a letter to Coal Mines Welfare Commissioner, Dhanbad dated 25.10.1975, under Annexure 3/1 to the writ application, authorizing the said officer, Sri P.C. Mallik, Executive Engineer, C.M.W., Works, Dhanbad to settle all formalities as regards regularization of Monthly Paid Muster Roll employee of the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization. After rejection of the case of the petitioner, vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition, the petitioner sent legal notice dated 11.6.2005 to respondents for redressal of his grievance vide Annexure 4, annexing therewith Annexures 5, 5/1 and 5/2 regarding the services rendered by him in different capacity to stake his claim for pro rata pension. In the writ petition the petitioner has also annexed the order passed in O.A. Nos. 214, 215 and 216 of 2003, Annexure 6, wherein similar benefit has been extended to show that his case stands on the same footing like the applicants in the aforesaid Original Applications. On the aforesaid facts and documentary evidences, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondents for redressal of his grievance.

(3.) Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents-Union of India.