2026:JHHC:11912 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 932 of 2024 --------- Sarfuddin Ansari, aged about 65 years, son of Late Godam Mian, resident of Mouhuda Basti, PO & PS: Mouhuda, District- Dhanbad ....Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, having its Head Office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, PO & PS: Seraidhela, District- Dhanbad through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director 2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, PO & PS: Seraidhela, District- Dhanbad 3. General Manager, Western Jharia Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, PO: Moonidih, PS: Putkee, District- Dhanbad 4. Project Officer, Murlidih, 20/21 PITS Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, PO & PS: Mouhuda, District- Dhanbad ....Respondent(s) --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate --------- 10/Dated:-23.04.2026 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 2026:JHHC:11912 2 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. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ application is hereby 2026:JHHC:11912 3 disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach the Project Officer, who is respondent No.4 and the Project Officer is directed to forward the record of the petitioner for calculation of provident fund and pension etc. by the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation in view of the fact that in coal company, the pension and PF both are contributory in nature. 9. It is observed that the concerned Officer of Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation, who is certainly not a respondent in this case is requested to decide the case of the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred case which the petitioner will also annexe with his representation before the Project Officer as well as Provident Fund Officer. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) APRIL 23, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 20/05/2026