Mobarak Ansari @ Mobarak vs Central Coalfields Limited And Ors

Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent CCL.

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due

to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been

heard.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to grant benefit of special piece rated allowance of his deceased

mother, in accordance with clause 3.11.2-4 and other provisions of NCWAs annually and further to calculate the salary on April, 2004, i.e. the date on

which the petitioner’s mother’s service got converted into that of the time (daily) rated from piece (tub) rated, at the enhanced rate on the

basis of increments so granted. Further to grant the benefits of additional special piece rated allowance of his deceased mother in accordance with

clause no.3.12 of NCWA-II-VII on completion of prescribed period of service as per respective NCWAs of relevant years up till April, 2004 i.e. the

date on which the petitioner’s mother’s service got converted into that of time (daily) rated from piece (tub) rated at the enhanced rate on the

basis of increments so granted, to grant benefit of pay protection of his deceased mother on account of she being shifted from group V piece rated

worker to category I time rated worker on account of loss of wages [adding the allowances of piece rated-prayer no.(i) and (ii) per but as piece rated

worker to the lower scale of time (daily ) rated worker, in the year 2004 respectively and to fix, finalize and pay the pension and gratuity of the mother

of the petitioner at the enhanced rate, along with arrears, on the basis of improved salary position, as prayed above, specifically for the period of last

10 months of petitioner’s mother service, immediately before her retirement, the period of which the salary is accounted for calculation of

pensionary and gratuity benefits.

The mother of the petitioner was appointed as piece rated employee on permanent basis by the respondent authority on 19.02.1973 and got retired on

30.06.2009. The petitioner’s mother had performed the duties for the respondent authorities to their utmost satisfaction and without any complaint.

The payment rate to the petitioner’s mother, being piece rated employee, was fixed on the basis of the number of tubs being loaded and carried

per day. On an average, the petitioner had to work for 8 hours a day in which he could manage to load and carry and unload 2-3 tubs(container) of

coal. The name of the petitioner’s mother figures in Form-B. There is provisions in NCWA of allowances in accordance with clause 3.12 of

NCWAâ€"II-VII. The petitioner has preferred the representation before the authorities for such relief but no decision has been taken on that.

Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent CCL submits that the matter can be disposed of and that authority will decide the

representation of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the respondent no.3 within three weeks from today. If such representation is

filed within aforesaid period the respondent no.3 will take a decision in accordance with NCWA and the provisions made thereunder within 8 weeks

thereafter. It goes without saying that if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, the benefit of the same shall be extended to the petitioner

within 8 weeks further thereafter. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.