{"id":208687,"date":"2009-06-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009"},"modified":"2015-07-15T18:25:19","modified_gmt":"2015-07-15T12:55:19","slug":"hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Hari Singh Kanwar vs 5 Commissioner on 16 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Hari Singh Kanwar vs 5 Commissioner on 16 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n              HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n\n\n\n                   WRIT PETITION NO 07 of 2001\n                    WRIT PETITION s NO 7090 of 2007\n                    WRIT PETITION NO 1335 of 2005\n\n\n\n                   R Mukhopadhyay, Legal  Manager\n\n                    M K  Khastagir\n\n                    Hari  Singh Kanwar\n\n                                 ...Petitioners\n\n\n                Versus\n\n\n\n\n                 1 Union  of  India  through  Secy.\n                    Ministry of Law, New Delhi.\n\n                  2 Coal Mines Provident Fund\n                    Commissioner\n\n                  3 Regional Coal Mines Provident Fund\n                    Commissioner\n\n                  4 South Eastern Coalfields Limited\n\n                  5 Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident\n\n                                             ...Respondents\n\n\n\n!         Petitioner in Person In W P  No 07 of 2001\n\n\n          Mr  Gary  Mukhopadhyay,  For  petitioner  in  W P s No 7090 of 07\n\n          Mr  R Mukhopadhyay  & Mr  Gary Mukhopadhya  For  petitioner  in  W P No 1335 of 2005\n\n\n^         Mr S K  Beriwal, Advocate For  respondent Union  of India    in    all    the petitions\n\n          Mr Alok   Bakshi Advocate For respondent-Coal Mines appears  on behalf of  Mr A S Provident Fund in all the\n\n         Geharwar, Advocate  petitions\n\n\n          Mr P S Koshy, Advocate  For  respondent  SECL  in  W P No 07 of 2001  & WPs No 7090 of 07\n\n          Mr H B Agarwal, Sr Adv with For  respondent  SECL  in Miss Rinki Tamrakar, Advocate W P No 1335 of 2005\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                    HON MR DHIRENDRA MISHRA & HON MR R N CHANDRAKAR JJ        \n\n\n\n\n                     Dated: 16\/06\/2009\n\n\n\n\n:                       Judgment\n\n\n                           O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                  (Passed on 16th June, 2009)<\/p>\n
Dhirendra Mishra, J\n<\/p>\n
  1.    These  petitions are being disposed of by  this  common
\n     order, as the petitioners in these petitions have impugned the
\n     constitutional validity of Para-61 of the Coal Mines Provident
\n     Fund Scheme (for short `the Scheme’) framed in exercise of the
\n     powers conferred by Section 3 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund
\n     and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (for short `the Act,
\n     1948′).\n<\/p>\n
  2.    For the purpose of this order, reference is made to the
\n     facts of W.P. No.07\/2001 (R. Mukhopadhyay Vs. Union of India &
\n     ors).\n<\/p>\n
  3.   Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioners
\n     herein have been retired as Officers working under the South
\n     Eastern Coalfields Limited (for short `SECL’).  Petitioners
\n     namely R. Mukhopadhya & M.K. Khastagir became members of the
\n     Coal Mines Provident Fund (for short `CMPF’) after joining
\n     their services in the erstwhile Rewa Coalfields Limited  &
\n     Chrimiri  Colliery Company Limited respectively.  Whereas,
\n     petitioner-Hari Singh Kanwar joined National Coal Development
\n     Corporation  (for  short  `NCDC’),  a  Central  Government
\n     undertaking, and became member of NCDC Provident Fund (for
\n     short `NCDCPF’).  After nationalization of the Coal Mines in
\n     the  year  1973, NCDC as well as erstwhile private  sector
\n     companies came under the management of Coal Mines Authority
\n     Limited.  Subsequently, coal industry was reorganized and Coal
\n     India Limited (for short `CIL’), a government company, was
\n     formed with its subsidiaries companies including SECL. The SECL
\n     and  Central Coalfields Limited (for short `CCL’) are also
\n     government companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956.
\n     After nationalization, NCDC got merged with CIL and Head-office
\n     of NCDC, Ranchi became the registered office of CCL.  After
\n     formation of CCL, NCDCPF was renamed as Central Coalfields
\n     Limited Staff Provident Fund (for short `CCLSPF’) and the rules
\n     applicable to the members of NCDCPF continued to be same as the
\n     members of CCLSPF.\n<\/p>\n
          As per Rule 15 (a) of the CCLSPF Rules, CCLSPF was  a
\n     contributory provident fund. Contribution of  each  member
\n     was   deducted  from  his  salary  and  equal  amount  was
\n     contributed  by  the  company to  the  fund.   Both  these
\n     amounts  were deposited to the fund balance in the  credit
\n     of  the  members. Similarly, CMPF is also  a  contributory
\n     fund.  The employer is to contribute equal amount  as  the
\n     employee  and  both the amounts are to be  deposited  with
\n     CMPF through SECL every month.\n<\/p>\n
          Rule  19  (d) of CCLSPF Rules provides that  interest
\n     payable on the balance of the fund of the member is to  be
\n     calculated  at the close of financial year in  the  manner
\n     prescribed   for  the  General  Provident  Fund   of   the
\n     Government  of India, whereas, interest is to be  paid  to
\n     the members of CMPF as per Para-61 of the Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
          After  nationalization of the Coal Mines in the  year
\n     1973,  all the employees of the coal mines came under  the
\n     same  employer  i.e. CIL, however, service conditions  for
\n     the employees including provident fund rules continued  to
\n     remain  separate.  In exercise of powers  conferred  under
\n     Section  3  (E)  of  the Act, 1948, the  Coalmines  Family
\n     Pension  Scheme,  1971 was superceded and  a  new  pension
\n     scheme  was  framed as Coal Mines Family  Pension  Scheme,
\n     1998.   However, benefits of this scheme were not extended
\n     to   the  members  of  CCLSPF  and  members  of  Coalmines
\n     Authority Limited Staff Provident Fund.\n<\/p>\n
          The  above  exclusion caused resentment  amongst  the
\n     members of CCLSPF and in these circumstances  the Board of
\n     Trustees of CCLSPF resolved to merge CCLSPF with  CMPF  so
\n     that the members of CCLSPF could also became eligible  for
\n     pension  and accordingly merger was effected vide  gazette
\n     notification dated 8.10.2004.  In consequence of the above
\n     merger  all  the  amount in the credit of the  members  of
\n     CCLSPF was transferred to CMPF and accordingly, petitioner
\n     Hari Singh Kanwar also became eligible for pension subject
\n     to  compliance of conditions imposed by subsequent gazette
\n     notification dated 13.2.2003. After petitioner- Hari Singh
\n     Kanwar  became  member  of  CMPF,  he  was  paid  interest
\n     annually in terms of Para-61 of the Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
  4.   The common grievance of the petitioners in these petitions
\n     is  that the members of CMPF are denied interest on  their
\n     deposits towards provident fund from the date the same  is
\n     deducted from their salary and equal amount is deposited by the
\n     SECL in their CMPF account.\n<\/p>\n
  5.   Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that
\n     the contribution of CMPF amount of the petitioners is to be
\n     deposited every month and therefore, they should also be paid
\n     interest with effect from the date of deposit. Prior to merger
\n     of  CCLSPF in CMPF, petitioner-Hari Singh Kunwar was  paid
\n     interest in the manner of calculation of interest under the
\n     General Provident Fund, as per Rule 19 (d) of the CCLSPF Rules.
\n     Rule 11 (2) sub-para (iii) of GPF (Central Services) Rules
\n     clearly stipulates that interest shall be paid on all sums
\n     credited to the subscriber’s account after last day of the
\n     preceding year from the date of deposit upto the end of the
\n     current year.  The manner of calculation of interest under the
\n     Scheme is given in Para 61 (2) according to which no interest
\n     is to be paid to the employee for the monthly contribution from
\n     the date of deposit.  Where opening balance of the employee is
\n     Nil in any particular financial year in that case he will not
\n     be entitled for any interest for the whole year though he has
\n     regularly deposited the monthly contribution towards provident
\n     fund.  Under Para 61 (2) of the Scheme the employee suffers
\n     recurring loss of interest throughout his service career in
\n     this manner.\n<\/p>\n
          Petitioner-Hari Singh Kanwar was getting interest  on
\n     his  deposits  from the date of deposit and  interest  was
\n     calculated in the manner prescribed in Rule 11 of GPF (CS)
\n     Rules.  After  the date of merger of CCLSPF and  CMPF,  he
\n     became entitled for CMPF only after depositing substantial
\n     amount  with  interest to the pension fund,  however,  the
\n     benefit  which he was enjoying since joining coal industry
\n     was   taken   away  after  merger  as  per   the   Scheme.
\n     Calculation of interest under Para 61 (2) of the Scheme is
\n     illegal and arbitrary.\n<\/p>\n
  6.   On the other hand learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3
\n     submitted  that the Scheme has been framed by the  Central
\n     Government to offer best possible return on provident fund
\n     contribution and its investment with maximum  security  on
\n     deposits, at the same time discharging the duties under the
\n     Scheme  keeping the corpus dependable. Because of  prudent
\n     investment  by the CMPF organization, its subscribers  are
\n     getting higher rate of interest than the GPF subscribers, as
\n     would be evident from the comparative table. The provisions of
\n     GPF & CMPF Act cannot be compared.  The Scheme under CMPF Act
\n     has  been  framed as industry-specific, whereas, Employees
\n     Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 covers around 30 million employees
\n     who  are paid interest on monthly running basis.  The said
\n     scheme debars a subscriber to become its member whose monthly
\n     salary exceeds Rs.6500\/- under Para 2 (f)(ii) of the E.P.F.
\n     Scheme, 1952. Whereas, there is no such bar and limitation
\n     under the Scheme.  Apart from this, the members of the Scheme
\n     are  getting benefit of 12% matching contribution from the
\n     employer.  In absence of any ceiling of income, the Senior
\n     Executive of Coal Company is getting matching contribution of
\n     Rs.7,000\/- to 8,000\/- per month from their employer apart from
\n     the interest that would accrue on such contribution. Under the
\n     EPF Scheme, 1952 contribution for some employees is 10% of the
\n     gross wage while for others it is 12% of gross wage, whereas,
\n     the Scheme provides for 12% contribution across the board,
\n     irrespective of class of employees and their earnings.\n<\/p>\n
          It  was  further argued that W.P. No.6402\/2002  (P.N.
\n     Chakrovorthy  Vs.  Union  of  India  &  others)  and  W.P.
\n     No.6431\/02  (G.K. Mitra Vs. Union of India & others)  were
\n     filed  before  the  High Court of Madhya  Pradesh  seeking
\n     similar  relief and the same were dismissed  by  the  High
\n     Court   on  26.2.2004.   Special  Leave  Petition  (Civil)
\n     No.10382\/2004  was  filed  by  the  petitioner   in   W.P.
\n     No.6420\/02 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and  the  same
\n     was  also  dismissed in limine vide order dated 17.9.2004.
\n     (Annexures R-16 to R-18 in W.P. No.1335\/05).\n<\/p>\n
  7.   Similar arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the
\n     respondent-Union of India and respondent-SECL.\n<\/p>\n
  8.   Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners
\n     submits that the earlier petitions filed for similar relief
\n     were dismissed with an observation that “it is submitted by the
\n     learned counsel for the respondents that the Board of Trustees,
\n     after considering various aspects of the matter, have decided
\n     that interest should be calculated on the original balance at
\n     the end of the year.  No authority has been produced before
\n     this  Court by the petitioner to show that the  Scheme  is
\n     arbitrary and ultra-vires of the Act”. S.L.P. has also been
\n     dismissed at the threshold without entering into the merits.\n<\/p>\n
          Relying  upon  the  judgment in the  matter  of  D.S.
\n     Nakara and others Vs. Union of India reported in AIR  1983
\n     SC  130 it was argued that the absence of precedent cannot
\n     be   a   ground   to   dismiss  a   petition   challenging
\n     constitutional validity of a scheme framed under the  Act.
\n     Further  relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble  Supreme
\n     Court  in the matter of Kunhayammed & others Vs. State  of
\n     Kerala  &  another reported in (2000) 6  SCC  359  it  was
\n     argued  that  where a SLP is dismissed by  a  non-speaking
\n     order without assigning reasons for dismissing the SLP, it
\n     would  neither  attract the doctrine of merger  so  as  to
\n     stand  substituted  in place of the  order  put  in  issue
\n     before  it  nor would it be a declaration of  law  by  the
\n     Court  under Article 141 of the Constitution for there  is
\n     no law which has been declared.\n<\/p>\n
  9.   We have heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
  10.   So far as the last argument advanced by learned counsel
\n     for  the respondent- Coal Mines Provident Fund that a writ
\n     petition for similar relief has been dismissed by the High
\n     Court  of  Madhya Pradesh and S.L.P. against the order  of
\n     dismissal has been further dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme
\n     Court is concerned, after perusal of the order of dismissal
\n     passed  by the High Court and subsequent dismissal by  the
\n     Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find substance in the arguments of
\n     the petitioners that the petition has been dismissed only on
\n     the ground that no authority has been produced to show that the
\n     scheme is arbitrary and ultra-vires of the Act.  Appeal against
\n     the above order has been dismissed at the threshold and it does
\n     not assign reasons for dismissing the special leave petition.
\n     Relying  upon the judgments in the matters of D.S.  Nakara
\n     (supra) & Kunhayammed (supra), we hold that dismissal of the
\n     earlier writ petition for similar relief finally by the Hon’ble
\n     Supreme  Court  will not make the instant  petitions  non-
\n     maintainable and we propose to decide the same on merits.\n<\/p>\n
 11.  Before entering into the merits of the rival contentions,
\n     we  propose to trace the history of the legislation  under
\n     consideration.  The Act, 1948 (Annexure R-1) was enacted with
\n     an object of making provisions for framing of provident fund
\n     scheme; family pension scheme; deposit linked insurance scheme
\n     and bonus scheme for the persons employed in the coal mines.
\n     In exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Act, 1948 a Coal
\n     Mines Provident Fund Scheme (Annexure R-2) was framed vide
\n     notification dated 11.12.1948.  In further exercise of powers
\n     under Section 3 of the Act, 1948 a Coal Mines Family Pension
\n     Scheme,  1971 (Annexure R-3) was also framed.  Coal  Mines
\n     Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 (Annexure R-4) was also
\n     framed in exercise of powers under Section 3 (G) of the Act,
\n     1948.  However, in further exercise of powers under Section 3
\n     (E) of the Act, 1948 Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 (CMPS)
\n     (Annexure R-5) was prepared in supercession of Coal  Mines
\n     Family Pension Scheme, 1971. As already stated in foregoing
\n     paragraphs, the provisions of CMPS were not applicable to the
\n     members of CCLSPF.  After the Board of Trustees of  CCLSPF
\n     decided to merge CCLSPF with CMPF and after notification of the
\n     same, the CMPS Rules were applicable to the erstwhile employees
\n     of NCDC.\n<\/p>\n
          The  Scheme  is in force in whole of the country  and
\n     the  same  is  applicable to all the  coal  mines  workers
\n     working under different subsidiaries companies of the CIL.
\n     Para-27  of  the Scheme provides for rate of  contribution
\n     towards  provident fund by the employee and the  employer.
\n     Para-29  provides  for  recovery of member’s  contribution
\n     from his salary.  Para-37 cast a duty upon the employer to
\n     ask  every  member  of  the fund  to  declare  particulars
\n     concerning   himself  and  his  nominee  in   Form-A   for
\n     communication to the Commissioner.  Contribution Cards are
\n     also  issued under the Scheme to the members.   Period  of
\n     currency  of  contribution  card  is  one  year.   Para-41
\n     mandates  that the employer shall on or before  expiration
\n     of  period  of  currency prepare a  contribution  card  in
\n     respect of each member employee by him or a ledger in  the
\n     Form-YY. Under Para-42 every employer is to submit to  the
\n     Commissioner or such other officer subordinate to him,  as
\n     may  be  authorized  by  him on his  behalf,  contribution
\n     cards.  Para-42 (5) cast a duty on the employer to  submit
\n     statement  of contribution in Form-VV for currency  period
\n     calculated  on  the basis of ledger in Form-YY.   Para-50A
\n     provides for the manner in which remittance of CMPF amount
\n     is to be deposited to the current account of CMPF with the
\n     Imperial  Bank.  Para-54  provides  that  all  the  moneys
\n     belonging  to  the CMPF shall be either deposited  in  the
\n     Imperial  Bank of India or any such other scheduled  banks
\n     as  may be approved by the Central Government from time to
\n     time,  or invested in securities mentioned or referred  to
\n     in  Clauses  (a) to (d) of Section 20 of the Indian  Trust
\n     Act,  1882.  Sub-para 2 of Para-54 requires that the Board
\n     shall  prepare a classified summary of the  asset  of  the
\n     funds as on 31st March of each year or on such other dates
\n     as  the  Central  Government may specify. Para-61  of  the
\n     Scheme  deals  with the manner in which  the  Commissioner
\n     shall  credit  the  account of each  member,  interest  in
\n     respect  of  period of currency of the cards  expiring  in
\n     such financial year.  Para-61 (2) describes the manner  in
\n     which interest is to be calculated.  The interest for  the
\n     period  of  currency of the card is to  be  credited  with
\n     effect  from  the last day of the period  on  the  opening
\n     balance  at  the  credit of the member on  the  first  day
\n     thereof.\n<\/p>\n
  12.   The  petitioners have impugned the above  provision  of
\n     computation of interest on the ground that by adopting the
\n     above manner of computation of interest, the petitioners are
\n     deprived of the interest for the amount deposited by  them
\n     during currency of financial year.  It was argued that after
\n     deducting the contribution towards provident fund from the
\n     salaries of the petitioners, the respondents are duty bound to
\n     pay interest from the date of deduction from the salary and
\n     deposit in the provident fund account.  Denial of payment of
\n     interest from the date of deposit is infringement of their
\n     fundamental rights.  Relying upon the judgment in the matter of
\n     Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India & others reported in
\n     (2007)  3  SCC 545 it was argued that interest  is  normal
\n     accretion on capital with passage of time. Provision regarding
\n     interest and its calculation for general provident fund is
\n     mentioned in Rule 11 of GPF (Central Services) Rules.   From
\n     perusal of the same it would be evident that the interest is
\n     payable  to  the members of GPF from the date of  deposit,
\n     however, Para-61 of the Scheme deprives the members of CMPF
\n     from  interest from the date of deposit, which  is  per-se
\n     arbitrary and irrational and the same debars the petitioners of
\n     their legitimate claim.\n<\/p>\n
  13.  We have already referred the development of law that has
\n     taken place since 1948. The above legislation is a beneficial
\n     legislation enacted for the benefits of coal mines employees.
\n     Initially,  provisions were made only  for  generation  of
\n     provident  fund of the member employees under the  Scheme.
\n     Subsequently, another scheme was framed for family pension
\n     after retirement of the employee.  Family Pension Scheme was
\n     reframed in the year 1998 superceeding earlier scheme of 1971.
\n     Earlier 1998 Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme (CMPS) excluded
\n     such employees who are not the members of the CMPF Scheme.
\n     However, considering the resentment of NCDC employees, who were
\n     governed by CCLSPF, the Board of Trustees decided to merge
\n     CCLSPF into CMPF and thereafter benefit of family pension was
\n     also made available to other employees of coal industries who
\n     were not covered in the past.  Before the merger of CCLSPF,
\n     members of CCLSPF were entitled for interest on the amount
\n     deposited by them towards provident fund in accordance with the
\n     manner in which the interest was computed under Rule 11 of GPF
\n     (CS) Rules.  As per Rule 19 (d) of CCLSPF Rules the deficit in
\n     the revenue account in any year was to be met by a grant from
\n     the Corporation now Company.  The members of CMPF are also
\n     entitled for family pension, benefit which was not available to
\n     the  members  of CCLSPF.  The procedure of  investment  of
\n     accumulated provident fund has been detailed in Para 54 of the
\n     Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
          It  is  not  a case where the petitioners are  denied
\n     total  interest  on their deposits. The grievance  of  the
\n     petitioners  is that the manner in which the  interest  is
\n     computed, as per Para-61 of the Scheme, deprives them from
\n     payment  of  interest from the date their contribution  is
\n     deposited  in  the  provident  fund.   Rate  of   interest
\n     deposited  in  provident fund account of the members,  the
\n     manner  in  which  provident fund so deposited  is  to  be
\n     invested  and the manner in which the interest  is  to  be
\n     computed  for  payment to its members  are  the  financial
\n     decisions that are to be taken by a responsible Government
\n     keeping  in  view  the overall interest of  the  concerned
\n     employees.  The Scheme has been framed in the exercise  of
\n     powers under Section 3 (E) of the Act, 1948 by the Central
\n     Government.  From various beneficial schemes framed by the
\n     Central Government from time to time in their exercise  of
\n     powers  under Section 3 (E) of the Act, it cannot be  said
\n     that the Central Government is oblivious to the welfare of
\n     the  coal mines employees.  In these circumstances we  are
\n     of  the  opinion that we cannot sit in judgment  over  the
\n     decision  of the Central Government as appellate authority
\n     in   exercise  of  powers  under  Article   226   of   the
\n     Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
  14.  So far as the challenge to constitutional validity of Para-
\n     61 of the Scheme on the ground that the manner of computation
\n     of  interest in GPF is beneficial to the employees as  the
\n     interest is computed from the date of deposit, whereas, the
\n     employees under the CMPF scheme are deprived of the interest on
\n     the amount which is deposited during the currency of financial
\n     year is concerned, there are several distinguishing features
\n     under  both the schemes, as already detailed in  foregoing
\n     paragraphs. There is difference in the rate of interest payable
\n     to  the employees who are members of GPF and CMPF.  It  is
\n     settled law that challenge to constitutional validity of the
\n     statute cannot be based on comparative study of provisions of
\n     the impugned statute with another statute on the same subject
\n     but derived from different source. When a statute is impugned
\n     under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in that case the
\n     Court has to decide whether the statute is so arbitrary or
\n     unreasonable that it must be struck down.\n<\/p>\n
  15.   In  the matter of Union of India & others Vs. Dhanwanti
\n     Devi  and others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 44, property  of
\n     respondent-Owner was acquired under the  Jammu  &  Kashmir
\n     Requisitioning & Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1968
\n     for public purpose vide notification under Section 7 of the
\n     Act.  The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation to the
\n     land owner with 10% escalation on account of passage of time.
\n     Feeling dissatisfied therewith the claimant-land owner sought
\n     reference under Section 8 of the Act to the Arbitrator, who
\n     enhanced the compensation and also awarded 15% solatium and 4%
\n     interest per annum on the enhanced compensation. The appellants-
\n     Union of India & others questioned the same by filing an appeal
\n     in the High Court, however, the award of the Arbitrator was
\n     subsequently confirmed and the appeal was dismissed.  Allowing
\n     the appeal and setting aside the award of solatium and interest
\n     on the compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-11 of
\n     the judgment held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
       “11.  Taking the question of entitlement to  interest
\n       as  a  first question, as vehemently argued  by  Shri
\n       Vaidyanathan,  broadly speaking, the  act  of  taking
\n       possession of immovable properties generally  implies
\n       an agreement to pay interest on its consideration for
\n       deferred  payment.  In a court of  equity,  when  the
\n       seller  parts with possession of immovable  property,
\n       the  purchaser  becomes its owner  while  the  seller
\n       receives  money  as  consideration  in  lieu  of  the
\n       property. The seller, therefore, is entitled to claim
\n       interest in place of his retaining possession of  the
\n       property from the date the purchaser takes possession
\n       of  the  property till the date of payment.  On  this
\n       premise,  claim  for interest is sought  against  the
\n       State  when it exercises its power of eminent  domain
\n       and  acquires  the property of a citizen  for  public
\n       purpose.  This principle was extended  in  equity  to
\n       recompensate  the  owner  for  deprivation   of   his
\n       possession  and enjoyment thereof in accordance  with
\n       law. It was, therefore, held in equity that the owner
\n       is  entitled to interest on the principal  amount  of
\n       award  from the date of taking possession unless  the
\n       statute  under which the land was acquired  expresses
\n       its  contrary  intention. It is on this premise  that
\n       the  right  to  receive interest takes the  place  of
\n       right  to retain possession and its enjoyment. It  is
\n       equally  settled  law  that  equity  operates   where
\n       statute  does not occupy the field. Conversely,  when
\n       the  statute  occupies the field  the  equity  yields
\n       place to the statute.”\n<\/p>\n
  16.  In the instant matter we have already held that the Act,
\n     1948 is a beneficial legislation enacted for the purposes of
\n     protecting interest of the employees of coal mines.  Various
\n     beneficial schemes were framed subsequently from time to time
\n     keeping in view the interest of the employees.  In the matter
\n     of State of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. Ananthi Ammal and others
\n     reported in AIR 1995 SC 2114 it was held that provisions of one
\n     statute  cannot be declared ultra-vires by  a  process  of
\n     comparative study of the provisions of another statute.  It has
\n     been  further held that when the statute is impugned under
\n     Article 14 of the Constitution what the court has to decide is
\n     whether the statute is so arbitrary or unreasonable that it
\n     must be struck down. At best, a statute upon a similar subject
\n     which derives its authority from another source can be referred
\n     to, if its provisions have been held to be reasonable or have
\n     stood the test of time, only for the purpose of indicating what
\n     may be said to be reasonable in the context.\n<\/p>\n
  17.   On  the  basis of aforesaid discussion, we are  of  the
\n     opinion that the manner of computing interest under Para-61 of
\n     the Scheme cannot be termed to be so arbitrary and unreasonable
\n     so that the same may be termed to be violating the provisions
\n     of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
  18.  In the result, the petitions have no substance, the same
\n     deserve to be dismissed and accordingly, the same are hereby
\n     dismissed.  No orders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
      JUDGE                                            JUDGE\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Hari Singh Kanwar vs 5 Commissioner on 16 June, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO 07 of 2001 WRIT PETITION s NO 7090 of 2007 WRIT PETITION NO 1335 of 2005 R Mukhopadhyay, Legal Manager M K Khastagir Hari Singh Kanwar …Petitioners Versus 1 Union of India through […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-208687","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHari Singh Kanwar vs 5 Commissioner on 16 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hari Singh Kanwar vs 5 Commissioner on 16 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-15T12:55:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hari Singh Kanwar vs 5 Commissioner on 16 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-15T12:55:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3846,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Hari Singh Kanwar vs 5 Commissioner on 16 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-15T12:55:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hari Singh Kanwar vs 5 Commissioner on 16 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hari Singh Kanwar vs 5 Commissioner on 16 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hari Singh Kanwar vs 5 Commissioner on 16 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-15T12:55:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hari Singh Kanwar vs 5 Commissioner on 16 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-15T12:55:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009"},"wordCount":3846,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009","name":"Hari Singh Kanwar vs 5 Commissioner on 16 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-15T12:55:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-singh-kanwar-vs-5-commissioner-on-16-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hari Singh Kanwar vs 5 Commissioner on 16 June, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208687","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=208687"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208687\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208687"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208687"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208687"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}