Somaru Ram vs Central Coalfield Ltd. and Others

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—The petitioner, Somaru Ram has preferred this writ petition for direction on respondents to provide the all does, having been allowed voluntarily retirement under Voluntarily Retirement Scheme (VRS), such as, VR wages, gratuity, CMPF, transfer TA, leave wages and pension etc. The respondents have denied to pay such benefits on the ground that a departmental proceeding was initiated against him for impersonation and without conclusion of the said proceeding the petitioner was wrongly allowed to retire under VR Scheme.

The case of petitioner is that the respondents cannot raise the question of impersonation, the matter having been settled by the competent Court of law i.e. the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 2) vide award dated 30th August, 1985 passed in reference Case No. 94/82.

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was appointed in the services of respondents M/s. Central Coalfields Limited (''CCL'' for short) in its Kedla Jharkhand Group of Collieries in May 1974. While so functioning his service along with seventeen others were terminated on the ground that they obtained appointment, impersonating the name of others. At the instance of the workmen the Government of India (Ministry of Labour) in exercise of power conferred u/s 10(1)(d) of the ID Act, 1974, referred the dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication whether the action of the management of Hazaribagh Area of CCL in terminating the services of petitioner and others was justified or not and what relief to which they were entitled. Reference No. 94/1982 was instituted and on hearing the parties the learned Tribunal vide award dated 30th August, 1985 held that the management had not been able to establish that the concerned workmen were impersonator or imposters. The order of termination was held to be illegal, petitioner and others were re-instated, and were deemed to be continuing in the services and it was ordered that they would be entitled for all back wages. It appears that inspite of such finding by a competent Court of law and the award which reached finality, a charge-sheet was issued on 9th September, 1988 alleging that the petitioner had committed fraud and dishonesty in entering the services of Kedla Jharkhand group of Collieries in May, 1974 against the appointment letter prepared in the name of Somra Uraon by altering the name of Somra Uraon to Somra Ram and impersonated as Somra Uraon. Similar charge made against one Dhaneshwar Mistry seems to have been challenged in CWJC No. 2107 of 1988 (R) Dhaneshwar Mistry v. Central Coalfields Limited and Ors. In the said case a Bench of the Court vide its order dated 10th October, 1988 asked the petitioner to file show-case reply with reference to the charge and to bring to the notice of the Management the award of the Tribunal and the Management to proceed further again in view of finding of the Tribunal in his favour. The Management in its own turn was directed to look into aspect of the matter and first decide what was the finding of the Tribunal. It was also observed that if the finding was in favour of such petitioner (Dhaneshwar Mistry) they will decide whether they would proceed further or not.

So far as petitioner is concerned, after initiation of the proceeding for the same charge vide charge-sheet dated 9th September, 1988 an Enquiry Officer was also appointed in 1990. However, on receipt of reply the respondents did not choose to take any action in the departmental proceeding. The petitioner applied for Voluntarily Retirement under V.R. Scheme which was accepted by the respondents vide letter No. 6363-75 dated 27/28th December, 1999 and the petitioner and another was made to retire w.e.f. 31st December, 1999. However, thereafter the retrial benefits having not been paid, the present application has been preferred.

From the fact aforesaid it would be evident that the question whether the petitioner impersonated or imposter at the time of initial appointment in 1974 or not reached finality when the award was issued on 30th August, 1985 in Reference Case No. 94/1982. Thereafter though it was not open for respondents to initiate proceeding for same charge, such charge-sheet was issued in the year 1988. But for 11 years the respondents did not choose to conclude it. On the other hand, on the application of petitioner he was allowed to superannuate w.e.f. 31st December, 1999 under V.R. Scheme. In this background now it is not open for respondents to deny the retiral benefits to the petitioner on the ground that a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he has been wrongly allowed to retire without its completion.

Further, there is nothing on the record to suggest that any rule or guideline has been issued to withhold the retiral benefits because of pendency of a departmental proceeding.

In the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner total retiral benefits etc. to which he is entitled within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which they will be liable to pay interest @ 5% from the date of retirement.

The writ petition is allowed with aforesaid observations and directions.