Pensioner can file case from the place where he belonged to or was receiving pension: Supreme Court

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.3630 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No.18375/2018)

Referred Acts in the Judgement:

• Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948
• The Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1988
• The Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, 1971
• The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
• The Constitution of India, 1950

Facts of the Case:

The case related to a retired employee Mr.B.N.Mishra (Appellant), who was an employee at Coal India Limited till 2005. Mr.Mishra withdrew his pension for eight (08) years. After which, Coal India Limited stopped providing his pension in the year 2013 stating that Mr.Mishra did not opt for the Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, 1988. In addition to this, Mr.Mishra was asked to refund a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs which was drawn by him previously.

Key happenings in the matter Chronologically:

1.Patna High Court (08.02.2013)

The said stoppage of pension and refund was challenged by Wife (Shanti Mishra) of Late Mr.Mishra at Patna High Court by way of Writ Petition No.13955/2006. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Applicant could either file in West Bengal (where the pension authority was located) or Jharkhand.

2. High Court of Jharkhand (2014)

The above dismissal was challenged by the Wife by way of another Writ Petition No.4930/2013 before High Court of Jharkhand. High Court dismissed the Writ Petition 2014 due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.

3. Supreme Court: (2020)

After the said dismissal, Wife appealed the Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Court made the following observations that:

1. The Mr.Mishra was residing at Darbhanga, Bihar after his retirement and he received his pension at the same place for over eight (08) years;
2. The Writ Petition filed at High Court of Jharkhand was filed under correct territorial jurisdiction and High Court was wrong in dismissing the Writ Petition;
3. Wife of Late Mr.Mishra is a widow and is living her life without any pension support.

In the light of above observations, Supreme Court granted provisional pension to the Wife and held that if a part of cause of action arises at a certain place then a Writ Petition is maintainable in that place under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. For the said purpose, Hon’ble Court referred cases such as Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anr., [(2004) 6 SCC 254] and Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors., [(2014) 9 SCC 329].

Read the Judgement here:

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/25048/25048_2018_34_1501_24598_Judgement_05-Nov-2020.pdf