Dr. Kabita Pramanik Das vs Union Of India & Ors

Shampa Sarkar, J

Despite service, none appears on behalf of the respondents.

The petitioner was appointed as a Lady Medical Officer on January 13, 1989 with a scale of pay E‐2 grade. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Medical Officer on December 19, 1992 with a scale of Grade E‐3. Ultimately, the petitioner was posted at Kenda area in the year 2007 as a Deputy Chief Medical Officer in Grade E‐6. On February 24, 2016, the General Manager Personal issued an order which stated that pecuniary benefits payable to the concerned executives promoted to Grade‐E7 from the date of the deemed promotion to the date of superannuation/separation would be granted and the same would be calculated notionally and the pension would be re‐fixed and payable become prospectively.

The petitioner submits after her superannuation on December 31, 2015, she was informed by a letter bearing Ref. No. ECL‐C(D)/Prom/Estab‐10/Med/EE/214 dated February 1/2, 2017 that Deputy Chief Medical Officer(Non‐Splst)(acquired PG degree/Diploma) in Grade E‐6 who were since superannuated would be notionally posted as Chief Medical Officer(Non‐Splst) in the scale of pay 43200‐66000 at par with her immediate junior in E‐6 grade, in the impugned DPC.

Subsequent to the abovementioned communication received from the respondents, the petitioner made several representations for re‐fixation of her pension in terms of the order upon granting notional fixation. For convenience, the order dated

February 1/2, 2007 is quoted below:

"In reference to CIL's order no. CIL/C‐5A/DPC/E6‐E7/CJ‐2017/B‐44 dated 19/20.01.2017 and CIL/C‐A(v)/DPC/E‐6‐E7/CJ2016/Promotion/Medical/(Non‐ Splst)/PG/1492 dated 24.02.2016, the following Dy. Chief Medical Officer(Non Splst)(acquired PG degree/Diploma) in E6 Grade who has SINCE SUPERANNUATED/SEPARATED are hereby notionally promoted to the post of Chief Medical Officer(Non‐Splst) in E7 grade in the scale of pay Rs. 43,200‐66,000/‐ at per with her immediate junior in senior list of E‐6 grade as on the date of impugned DPC pursuant whereto the orders of promotion to E‐7 grade were issued vide order no. CIL/C‐5A(iii)/DPC/E6‐E7/2013/Medical(non‐splst)/PG/B‐15 dated 02.04.2013.

SL No.

EIS NO

NAME

LAST PLACE OF POSTING,WHILE,IN SERVICE

SUPERANNUATED ON

1

90139 957

DR. K. PRAMANI K DAS

KENDA AREA

31‐12‐15

However, consequent to said promotion to E‐7 Grade ( pay scale Rs.43,200‐66,000/‐) in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, the pecuniary benefits payable to the concerned executive in the promoted Grade E‐7 from the date of her deemed promotion to the date of superannuation/separation, would be notinally calculated and her pension shall be fixed and payable prospectively. They shall be no payment of arrears."

Despite such order dated February 1/2, 2007, the respondents have not given the petitioner the benefit of the said office order. Aggrieved by such inaction, this writ petition has been filed.

In the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondents, namely, the Accounts

Officer, in the office of the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, Region‐1, it has been stated that Dr. Kabita Pramanik Das, w/o Sri Madhusudan Das,CMPF A/c. No. JBP/14/1431, superannuated from her service on 31.12.2015. Her pension claim was submitted by her last employer, i.e. Assistant Manager, Kendra Area office, ECL, vide a letter of even no. 3387, dated 08.08.2016 which was settled in the office on 13.09.2016 for payment of monthly pension @ Rs. 28,053/‐ (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand and Fifty Three) only per month. with an arrear of Rs. 2,24,424/‐(Rupees Two Lakhs, Twenty Four Thousand, Four Hundred and Twenty Four) only, paid to her S.B. A/c. No. 351061022379, SBI, Tamluk Railway Station Branch, through the Nodal Bank. The pension claim was settled taking her average emoluments as Rs.1,29,474/‐(Rupees One Lakh, Twenty Nine Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy Four) only , as per details, submitted by her last employer. Thereafter, the petitioner had informed the office by her letter dated 26.02.2017, that she had been promoted from E‐6 to E‐7 by the time of retirement, but she did not inform the said respondent what her average emolument would be, and that the calculation submitted by her employer was not correct.

For the reasons aforesaid, according to the said respondent, the petitioner was informed the said office order could not be implemented as the office had not received any revised claim settled by the employer, that is, Eastern Coalfields Limited.

In the affidavit in opposition filed by the Eastern Coalfields Limited, it has been stated that the office order was issued under the Pension Scheme, 1998 was a Contributory Pension Scheme, and the same did not create or vest any additional right in favour of the petitioner. The order dated February 1/2, 2007 was subject to the petitioner coming within the purview of the said pension scheme. However, in the affidavit in opposition, it is not explained as to why in the first place, the office order dated February 1/2, 2007 was at all issued in favour of the petitioner and also how the office order dated February 24, 2016 was also issued pursuant to the decision of this Court and the petitioner's name appeared at serial no.4 thereof. The explanation given by the Eastern Coalfields Limited does not seem to be satisfactory. There is no pleading that the order dated February 1/2, 2007 was issued either by mistake or was null and void.

Under such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Senior Manager(Personal), Pension Cell, Eastern Coal India Limited head quarter, Sanctoria, Dishergarh, District Burdwan, the respondent no.3 herein, to consider the matter afresh with regard to the petitioner's prayer for implementation of the office order dated February 1/2, 2007 upon hearing the petitioner and by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. The said decision should be taken and communicated to the petitioner within two months from the date of communication of this order.

The employer had issued the office order by granting the petitioner benefit in terms of the said order. Similarly, Coal India Limited has also issued an order dated February 24, 2016, extending similar benefits to the petitioner pursuant to the direction of this Court. Once such order has already been passed by the authority in terms of the order of this Court and thereafter individual order had also been issued in favour of the petitioner, unless there were valid and cogent reasons for denying the same to the petitioner, the payments could not be withheld for such a long time.

Writ petition is disposed of.

There will be, however, no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be given to the parties on priority basis, if the same is applied for.