1 2026:CGHC:13908 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6103 of 2021  Dolkuwar W/o Late Bhagwat Singh Aged About 59 Years R/o Bhilaibazar, Thana - Kusmunda, District - Korba(C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through General Manager Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Deputy Manager South Eastern Coalfield Limited Surakachhar, District - Korba (C.G.) 3. Deputy Regional Manager Surakachhar, District - Korba (C.G.) 4. Personnel Manager Surakachhar, District - Korba (C.G.) 5. Regional Commissioner Coal Mines Provident Fund, Seepat Road Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Syed Jayed Ziya Ali, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.03 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide fund and Pensionery benefit to the petitioner. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other order or orders, writ or writs, SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.25 18:55:04 +0530 2 direction or directions as this Hon’ble court may deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in favor of the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 2. Mr. Rastogi would submit that the husband of the petitioner was SECL employee, who died in harness on 25.05.1983. After death of husband of the petitioner gratuity and life cover amount were paid to the petitioner on 26.12.1986, but the admissible amount of provident fund has not been paid, therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming therein payment of admissible amount of provident fund with interest component. He would submit that after filing of this writ petition, the SECL authorities have forwarded documents to Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund (CMPF) on 03.03.2025. He would submit that as there was delay on the part of the SECL authorities, therefore, a direction may be issued to the SECL to make payment of interest on admissible provident fund amount. 3. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate would submit that despite repeated requests, the petitioner failed to provide relevant documents, therefore, the claim of the petitioner could not be processed. He would submit that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner, therefore, she is not entitled for interest. He would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate appearing for CMPF would submit that on 03.03.2025 documents were provided by the SECL authorities, and immediately thereafter, claim of the petitioner has been processed. He would submit that delay in payment of P.F. amount is not attributable to the CMPF authorities. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 3 6. Admittedly, husband of the petitioner died on 25.05.1983, who was an employee of SECL. The relevant documents were in possession of SECL authorities, but no steps were taken by the SECL to process the claim of the petitioner for payment of provident fund amount. After filing of this writ petition, the relevant documents were forwarded to CMPF on 03.03.2025 as informed by Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate appearing for CMPF, thus, it can safely be held that there was delay and negligence on the part of SECL authorities, therefore, the admissible interest on the provided fund amount shall be borne by the SECL. The CMPF shall quantify the amount and the SECL shall make payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount from 25.05.1983 till date of realization. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant