Read Time: 06 minutes

The Supreme Court last week remarked that the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 was framed as a measure of social security for ensuring socio-economic justice for the employees in the coal sector under the powers conferred by Section 3-E of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948.

"Pension as is well known, is the deferred portion of the compensation for rendering long years of service. It is a hard-earned benefit accruing to an employee and has been held to be in the nature of property by this Court, in State of Jharkhand and Others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another", added a bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy.

These observation were made by the bench while hearing an appeal filed by one Veena Pandey arising out of claims for pensionary benefits accruing to her deceased husband under the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998.

Veena's husband Ramashankar Pandey rendered service in the South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur, after being transferred from Bharat Coking Coal Ltd in 1999 and retired in May 2004 as Chief Personnel Manager at Bilaspur and later settled in Bhojpur, Bihar with his family.

Ramshankar Pandey had opted for receiving 90% pension during his life time as provided under Para 15 1(b) of the Pension Scheme, 1998 effective from March 31, 1998 and thus on his death on January 12, 2011, the widow, Veena became entitled to receive a lump sum amount equal to 100 times his full monthly pension, in addition to family pension.

Following Ramshankar’s death, Veena filed a claim accordingly, which was rejected. 

The Regional Commissioner of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization (‘CMPFO’) stated that the pensioner had opted for payment of 90% pension under Para 15 (1)(b) of the Pension Scheme, 1998, but the aforesaid provision was abolished w.e.f February 2011.

It was also intimated that the 10% surrendered amount had been refunded to all pensioners with interest under the order dated January 30, 2012 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner.

Veena then approached the Patna High Court but her plea was dismissed as not maintainable by the Single Judge on the ground that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Patna.

This order was later affirmed by a Division Bench.

The top court found that while considering the appellant’s case, the High Court did not consider her entitlement on merit, but had dismissed both the Writ Petition and the LPA, citing want of territorial jurisdiction.

It added that, for over a decade, the widow of the employee was forced to litigate to secure the pension benefits.

Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Court ordered for the sum due and payable under the Pension Scheme to be computed and disbursed to the employee's wife within 8 weeks.

Cause Title: Veena Pandey vs Union of India & Ors