s^ P t'a-e>. 5 BEFQRETHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAHISGARH AT BIL.A.SPUR 'C-G-I -\ PETITIONER WKlT PuiTiuN |S.| NuT7Q>/^ /2007 / Bal Krishna Singh, aged about 72 years, son ot LaTe Harishankar Sngh, Ketired Eiectrician - Heiper, S.E.C.L. BaiKunTnpur, District Surguja (C.G.j, resident of viiiage Jaidi Gopaipur, Post Barijaripur, District RESPONDENTS .0 ^^y ^•^ ..-•"'^^ ONiCiZipur, Uttar PracJesh. 1<. VERSUS /1. Coal India Limited, through - Its Chairman, 10 NeTaji Subhash Koad, <OLKATA (West Bengai). 2. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, TUrough - Its Chairman-Cum- Managing-Direcfor, Head Quarter -SLI^-L, ;seepui Kouu, biluspur iCUj 3. Chief General Manager, South bastern Coalflelds Limited, Bisnrampur Area, District Surguja (CG) 4. The Sub Area Manager, S.E.C.L. Sub Area lCatkona, DisTT. Sarguja C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition No. (S) 7311 of 2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Bal Krishna Singh Coal India Ltd. and others Shri Sushil Dubey counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.S. Koshy counsel forthe respondents Shri R. Mukhopadhaya appears as amicus curiae. Petitioner is also present in pe-son. ORDER (10.12.2010) Petitioner, a retired employee of SECL has filed this petition for the following relief(s): 7.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call ihe entire records from the authorities concerned for its perusal. 7.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the form of mandamus thereby commanding the Respondents to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner including the entire arrears, wages, pension, gratuity, bonus and other facilities available to him, as per the rules applicable to him with interest of 18% 7.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the form of mandamus thereby directing the respondent authorities to pay the monthly pension to the petitioner as and when it falls due through a nationalized bank at Ghazipur. 7.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other direction under the facts and circumstances of the case deems fit and proper. 2. According to the petitioner he was initially appointed as General Mazdoor Grade 1 and later promoted as electrical helper in category II on 3.11.1963. On 21.3.1976 (Annexure P-5) he was dismissed from service on the ground of unauthorized absence. However, during conciliation -2- proceedings, a settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and the management on 15.6.1978 in the following terms: "The management in the light of the above agreed to re- employ Shri Balkrishna Singh s/o Shri Harishankar Singh as Electrical Helper in Cat. 2 with immediate effect without any back wages (for the period from 21.3.1976 tillhe rejoins his duties as agreed) but for the purpose of continuity of his services the original date of his appointment will be taken into consideration." Thereafter the petitioner gave his joining at Katkona colliery and worked there till February 1981 and then he again remained unauthorizedly absent and never returned to join his duties. According to the petitioner, subsequently his services were terminated by theSECL but there isno such record either in the writ petition or with the department. According to the petitioner he made several efforts with the management to take him back on duty but neither he was taken back on duty nor he was paid any amount by the respondents and he has been unnecessarily penalized. 3. According to the respondents for the same cause of action in the year 2000 the petitioner had filed an application under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act before the CJIT/Labour Court, Jabalpur but the same was rejected on 4.2.2002 vide Annexure R-1 as not maintainable. It has been argued by the counsel for the respondents that since 1981 as the petitioner had stopped attending his duties, it would amount to abandonment of service. Counsel for the respondents submits that unfortunately there is no record with the department as on date pertaining to the period 1980-1981. He submits that the petitioner isnot entitled for any relief as claimed by him. According to him, it is not disputed that the provident fund amount coming to Rs. 61,354 has already been paid to the petitioner by the office of Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Jabalpur. In respect of pension, it has been informed by the counsel for both the parties that as the pension scheme was introduced in the year 1997 with effect from 1.4.1994, the petitioner is not entitled for any pensionary benefit. 4. On 10.11.2010 while hearing this petition when the respondents showed their inability to get the record of the petitioner, this Court appointed Shri R. Mukhopadhyaya Advocate who was earlier working in ^-^^. iSgEg'i •i s~ y* the law department of the SECL, as amicus curiae. He, by taking pains visited Vishrampur, Baikunthpur and Katkona colliery areas and has submitted his report on 8.12.2010 stating that after inspecting the available records the management has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for any pension and other retiral dues but he is certainly entitled for the gratuity amount. After inspection made by the amicus curiae, it appears that the respondents have also accepted the fact that the petitioner is entitled for gratutity amount and according to them it comes to about Rs. 5, 533.50 and interest on this amount comes to Rs. 16, 047.15, the total being Rs. 21,580. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. As the petitioner himself had abandoned his service since 1981 onwards, his whereabouts were not traceable and the respondents are also not in a position to trace the record of the petitioner but for the fact that learned amicus curiae could lay hand on some of the record, it is difficult to asceri:ain the correct date of birth or the date of retirement of the petitioner. •^ft 7. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the provident fund amount has been paid to the petitioner and the respondents are willing to give the amount of gratuity and for which counsel for the respondent has also brought a cheque No. 0263633 dated 8.12.2010 for Rs. 21, 580 and handed it over to the counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing. 8. Counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that apart from the amount of Rs. 21, 580, the petitioner is not entitled for any amount. Petitioner also agrees to receive the full and final payment of Rs. 21, 580. However, he submits that he is an old person aged about 77 years and he is pursuing this case for so many years, therefore, some heavy cost may be directed to be given to him. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case part:icularly the fact that the petitioner admittedly is not entitled for any pensionary benefits, this petition is disposed of. Petitioner is awarded a cost of Rs. g 1 •-•^^ -?Y- 10,000 which would be sent through an account payee cheque on the address given in the cause title of the petition within six weeks from today. This apart, respondents further agree to pay an additional amount of Rs. 3000 to learned amicus curiae. 10. With these observations, the petition is finally disposed of. 11. Before parting with the case, this Court thinks it necessary to record a feeling of appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Shri R. Mukhopadhyaya, amicus curiae, to this Couri:. ~ Pritinker Diwakar Judge (TT