RANCHI, India, May 25 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on April 23:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: For grant of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus or an order or direction commanding upon the respondents to pay and release the amount of Rs. 16,56,878/- being balance amount of gratuity to be calculated and assessed on the basic pay of Rs.2865.71 per day, amount of pension @ Rs.17,314.64, balance amount of CMPF on the basis of actual basic pay and other benefits with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of retirement till actual payment and for any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though his termination order was earlier quashed and set aside by this court; however, he has not been given the retiral benefit as per his calculation. His main grievance is with regard to short payment of gratuity, short calculation of pension and short calculation of provident fund.

4. Having regard to the prayer and submissions of Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, it is clarified that from record it appears that gratuity amount has already been paid to the petitioner as per the last pay drawn; and in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6804 of 2014, so far as gratuity is concerned, the same is calculated on the basis of last pay drawn; however, if the petitioner is having any grievance with regard to calculation, he may approach the competent authority constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

5. So far as the claim of the petitioner with regard to pension is concerned, it is true that the Writ Court in the earlier case has quashed the impugned order by observing that he would not get the back wages; meaning thereby to say that other benefits as per law will be provided to him.

6. In other words, for the purpose of fixation of pay and pension as on the date of retirement, it is necessary to take into account the notional increment, though the petitioner did not work from the date of termination till the date of retirement.

7. So far as the case of provident fund is concerned, the petitioner was an employee of BCCL, where Coal Mines Provident Fund Act is applicable, which is basically contributory in nature and so far as pension concerned, that is also contributory in nature.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqJa5807XzEEoZLKowXc%2FyvJyG9VgoWwQTeDQ3RCwSsm%2F&caseno=WPC/932/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010055002024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.