IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 849 of 2007
Most. Phulmatia Devi ... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
P.K. Chaudhary & Others ... ... ... ... Opp. Parties
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL
------
For the Petitioner: M/s Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Prakash Pd.
For the Opp. Parties: M/s Ananda Sen, Deepak, Roshan
------
4/ 24.02.2009
Reference may be made to the order dated 10.02.2009, which
reads as under:-
“The petitioner’s husband, late Kaila Bhuiya, while
working in the respondents- Central Coalfields Limited,
died in harness on 30th July, 2004. After his death, the
petitioner-widow moved from pillar to post for getting her
death-cum-retiral benefits including arrears of salary,
gratuity, provident fund amount, etc, but nothing was
paid. She thereafter moved this Court by filing a writ
petition being W.P. (S) No.1122 of 2007. The writ petition
was disposed on 17.4.2007 with a direction to the
respondents including Coal Mines Provident Fund
Commissioner to complete all the process and pay the
admitted amount of C.M.P.F. within two months. In spite
of the aforesaid direction, the petitioner has not been paid
her C.M.P.F. amount only because of the fact that in the
records of the employer-C.C.L., her name is shown as
“Phulmatia”, whereas according to Regional Commissioner
Provident fund, her name has been shown as “Phulmati”.
For this minor discrepancy, both the authorities of C.C.L.
and the Commissioner are making correspondences, but
nothing positive has been done. As a result of inaction from
the side of the respondents, the petitioner-widow has not
yet been paid her C.M.P.F. amount.
Put up this case on 24th February, 2009. On that
day, either the Opposite Parties shall produce before this
Court a cheque of P.F. amount together with interest till
the date of payment or, the Personnel Manager of the
concerned Colliery of C.C.L. and the Regional
-2-
Commissioner Provident Fund shall appear in person and
file show cause justifying their action for not paying the
amount.”
In compliance of the aforesaid order, learned counsel
appearing for the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
produced before me a cheque of Rs. 2,57,072/- (Two lakhs fifty
seven thousand and seventy two) against full and final settlement
of Provident Fund amount.
Prima facie, therefore, it is clear that despite the order passed
by this Court in the Writ Petition and efforts made by the widow
the amount of provident fund could not be paid to her. It was only
after the aforesaid order was passed, the amount of provident fund
has been paid by issuing cheque. It is a clear case of high
handedness on the part of the respondents. It is, therefore, a fit case
where the widow-petitioner should be paid cost for the harassment
in getting the amount of provident fund although her husband
died in harness in 2004. As noticed in the aforesaid order, only
because of some spelling mistake in the name of the petitioner i.e.
“Phulmatia” in place of “Phulmati” she was deprived of getting
provident fund amount. The form submitted by the respondent-
C.C.L. to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was
returned for making necessary correction in the name of the
petitioner. This was done in the year 2007. Today show cause has
been filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner annexing
letter dated 22.01.2009 issued by the Senior Personnel Officer
addressed to the Regional Commissioner. The relevant portion of
the said letter dated 21.01.2009 is reproduced herein below:-
“In order to avoid legal complication the
matter of CMPF refund claim in respest of Late Kaila
Bhuiya, Ex. PRW, KUGP CMPF A/C no. RMG/5-1619 in
favour of his wife Smt. Fulmatia Devi, to whom we have
paid gratuity etc., we are re-submitting herewith the
CMPF refund claim in original which were returned by
your office to KUGP vide your office letter No.
CPF/16/RMG/12/R-II/324 dated 9.07.07. An attested copy
of the Bank Pass Book as submitted to this office by the
claimant wife of the deceased member, which she has
-3-
opened in the Bank of India, Charhi Branch is enclosed
herewith for needful. ”
It is evidently clear that after the death of late Kaila Bhuiya,
the respondent-Central Coalfields Limited paid the gratuity and
other amounts to her instead of the mistake in the name of the
petitioner, but on the other hand, the Provident Fund
Commissioiner without taking into consideration these facts, have
returned the form to the C.C.L. and the C.C.L. in its turn delayed
the matter despite the initiation of contempt proceeding. It is worth
to mention here that the Bank Account was opened by the
petitioner in the year 2006 to enable the respondent to pay the
provident fund amount to her.
Prima facie, I am of the view that both the officers of C.C.L.
and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had taken the
matter very lightly and did not even bother to pay the provident
fund amount to the widow whose husband died in harness in the
year 2004. If the respondents will pay the provident fund amount
after five years from the date when the employee died in harness
then nothing more have to say in this regard. It is, therefore, fit case
of exemplary cost should be imposed upon both the respondents.
Hence, the Contempt proceeding is disposed of on the
deposit of cheque by the respondents, but they are directed to pay a
cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) to the petitioner, out of
which half of the amount shall be paid by the C.C.L. and rest half of
the amount shall be paid by the respondent-Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner.
(M. Y. Eqbal, J)
Alankar/AFR