SWAMI NATH SINGH Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of direction commanding upon the respondents to make payment of the admissible retirement benefits with up-to-date statutory interest, such as, Pension under Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998, Gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Provident Fund amount under the Coal Mines Provident Fund and the Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948.

(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner has passed the Matriculation Examination in the year 1969 and Intermediate Arts Examination in the year 1972. The petitioner's father, an employee of CCL died in harness. Medical Examination of petitioner was conducted by the Respondent-Company on 15.02.1980 as is evident from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and the age of the petitioner has been assessed as 24 years. The petitioner was appointed in the services of the respondent Company Central Coalfields Limited on Compassionate basis in the year 1980 on Category-I post and appointment letter on the post of Coal Cutter has been issued on 28.02.1980 and the petitioner joined on 16.04.1980. The petitioner has been granted Sirdar's Certificate as well as Overman certificate under Coal Mines Regulation, 1957 on 14.02.1983 and 16.10.1990. Thereafter, Overman's certificate was renewed on 15.04.1998. The respondents have themselves mentioned petitioner's date of birth as 15.02.1956 recorded in his service sheet. However, the petitioner superannuated with retrospective effect from 31.01.2013 considering his date of birth 05.01.1953 recorded in the petitioner's Overman's Certificate dated 26.10.1990 as is evident from the letter dated 21.04.2015 (Annexure 9). Thereafter the petitioner made several representations dated 04.06.2015, 12.08.2015 and 15.09.2015 before the Respondent-Company requesting for payment of his retrial dues. When the respondents have not taken any action on the representations of the petitioner, the petitioner left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel for the respondents CCL as well as Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-CMPF.