- (1.) This case has been listed on the basis of mentioning being made by the learned counsel for the appellants for its urgent hearing and thereby the case has been listed today for hearing. The matter has been heard with the consent of learned counsel for the appellants through video conferencing. There is no complaint about any audio and visual quality. I.A. No.985 of 2021 Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants does not press this Interlocutory Application for the reason that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge has been complied with when the matter was taken up in a Contempt proceeding subject to outcome of this appeal. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application being I.A.No.985 of 2021 is dismissed as not pressed. I.A.No.986 of 2021 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 491 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Heard. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, I.A.No.986 of 2021 is allowed and delay of 491 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.275 of 2020 The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 26.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6531 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the decision of the authority for recovery of an amount of Rs.94,474.24 paisa as contained in letter dated 27.05.2016 has been quashed with a direction to release the aforesaid amount in favour of the writ petitioner.
(2.) The brief facts of the case required to be enumerated which reads hereunder as:-
(3.) The writ petitioner was appointed by Bharat Coking Coal Limited, in short 'BCCL' on 27.07.1980. He superannuated as Senior Overman of Simlabahal Colliery, PB Area, BCCL w.e.f. 28.02.2015. The writ petitioner claimed that he has received all retiral benefits except CMPF deduction on leave encashment amounting to Rs.93,630/-, 30 days wages amounting to Rs.42,240/- and honorarium allowance of Rs.1000/-. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that since the aforesaid amount was not paid to the writ petitioner, he made an inquiry and came to know that vide letter dated 27.05.2016, the Assistant Engineer(Finance) Simlabahal Colliery directed the Project Officer of the said Colliery that amount of Rs.94,474.24 paisa has to be recovered from the writ petitioner as the said amount was paid in excess to the entitlement of the writ petitioner against the charge allowance and because of wrong fixation in the year 2010 and 2013 respectively. According to the writ petitioner, the decision of the authority pertaining to recovery of the aforesaid amount is absolutely bad, since the same has been taken without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard for making recovery of the said amount from the post-retiral benefits of the writ petitioner. It is the further grievance of the writ petitioner that there was no fault on the part of the writ petitioner nor there was any misrepresentation on his part in getting his pay fixed or in receiving charge allowance in the year 2010 and 2013 respectively. According to the writ petitioner that since there were no latches on his part nor he has misrepresented, the amount could not have been deducted. The case of the respondent BCCL is that as per Audit report, the amount of Rs.74,588.65/- was paid in excess to the writ petitioner on account of charge allowance in the year 2010. Further, it was detected that because of wrong fixation in the year 2013, an amount of Rs.19,885.59/- was paid to the writ petitioner in excess, as such, the total amount of Rs.94,474.24 paisa was recoverable from the writ petitioner. As per the respondents, the PF refund in January, 2015 and February, 2015 comes to Rs.37,246/- and PF refund in leave amount comes to Rs.56,384/- totaling to Rs.96,360/- and as such, the total amount of Rs.94,474.24 paisa was thus deducted from the aforesaid amount and has not been paid to the writ petitioner. So far as the Honorarium and unpaid wages are concerned, the respondent denies any liability. The writ Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has quashed the impugned decision of the authority with a direction to release the aforesaid amount in favour of the writ petitioner, which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal. ;