1 2025:CGHC:18557 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4439 of 2018 1 - Smt. Anita Debnath W/o Late Shri Rewati Mohan Nath Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Madhya Parokata, Uttar Parokata, P.S. Samuktala, District- Jalpaiguri 736202, West Bengal (Husband Name- Wrongly Manson As Rebati Mohan Nath), District : Jalpaiguri, West Bengal ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through- Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Headquarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager Secl, Hasdeo Area, P.O. South Jhagrakhand Colliery, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Area Manager Kurja Sub Area, S.E.C.L., Kapildhara, P.O. Bijuri, District- Annuppur, Madhya Pradesh., District : Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh 4 - Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation Through The Commissioner Beside Sarkanda Police Station Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Regional Commissioner Regional Office , Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, Shakti Nagar, Guptweshwar, Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Yash Karan Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondent No.4 : Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No.5 : Shri Ravi Ranjan Sinha, Advocate alongwith Shri Shubham Singh, Advocate. SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to place the entire record pertaining to the claim of the husband of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the respondents to compute the correct pension payable to the petitioner under the Scheme 1998 and make payment of the same along with arrears. 10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner is a widow, aged about 85 years. Her husband has expired on 5.1.2001. The husband of the petitioner was employed with the SECL and he passed away after his superannuation. He would contend that according to the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998, the petitioner is entitled to a higher pension, but she is being paid Rs.592/- only. He would pray that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to calculate the pension properly and make payment of it. 3 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would contend that according to entitlement of the petitioner, pension is being paid. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 would submit that the pensionable service was properly calculated by the Competent Authority and the petitioner is being paid Rs.592/- per month. Learned counsels for respondents No.1 to 3 & 4 would support the submission made by counsel for respondent No.5. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that respondent No.5 properly calculated the amount of pension and it is being paid regularly to the petitioner, in opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. 6. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi