- (1.) This Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with following prayers: "(a) For quashing of the order of the Coal India Limited, being Order No. CIL/Pers/PR/201011/73/G dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure19), by which the Board of Directors of Coal India Limited has approved for payment of lumpsum amount recoverable advance for financial years 2007-08, 200809, 200910 to Board Level and below Board Level executives of C.I.L. and its subsidiaries which has been issued arbitrarily, without having jurisdiction and without the approval of D.O.P.T., Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises and without the sanction given by the Ministry of Coal and the amount has been disbursed with malafide intention, just to enrich the officers only of C.I.L. and all its subsidiaries and accordingly a huge financial caused to the country by giving double payments to officials. (b) For fixing responsibilities on those persons who hastily paid the P.R.P. without the due sanction of the D.O.P.T. the Coal Ministry and Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, Govt. of India without unanimous resolution of giving performance related pay by Board of Directors. (c) For a detail enquiry in the above matter, either by Central Vigilance Commission or an enquiry by Central Bureau of Investigation into the performance related pay and all other financial irregularities and misappropriation of Government funds by the officials & others machinery connected, directly or indirectly with the Coal India Ltd. or investigation by any other agencies, which this Court thinks appropriate.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Performance Related Pay (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as the "PRP") which is paid to the employees of Coal India Limited (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as the "CIL") is nothing, but, the misuse and wastage of the public fund. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the heavy loss in the CIL and its subsidiaries, the PRP is being paid. Thirdly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that such PRP cannot be paid to all the employees and lastly it is submitted that from various annexures, annexed with the writ petition as well as with I.A. No. 3855 of 2014 as well as with the supplementary affidavit, it will reveal that in fact much exaggerated figure of manufacturing of coal is being shown by the employees of CIL and unnecessarily they are getting the PRP.
(3.) Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union of India submitted that detailed counter affidavit has been filed and it is submitted by him that this is not a Public Interest Litigation, at all. Secondly, the PRP has a direct nexus with the Presidential order and the direction given in different notifications. Thirdly, it is submitted that there is definite methodology of calculation of the PRP and since long the PRP is being paid. It is further submitted by the learned ASGI that initially PRP was paid to very limited employees of the CIL as they were transferable to other subsidiary companies which are running in loss, but, the fact remains that such employees are transferable and despite there is an efficient order, for several reasons there are loss in subsidiary companies and, therefore, general demand was raised by the employees of subsidiary companies of the CIL that PRP should be paid to all the employees. Time and again, recommendations have been made by separate Committees including the Committee of Ministers at Central level and now it is under active consideration before the Committee of the Ministers. Nonetheless, at present PRP is paid to all the employees along with a rider that it is being paid subject to the outcome of the final decision by the Central Government and it will be recoverable, if the decision is taken against the employees. Detailed annexures have been annexed with the counter affidavit filed by the Central Government. It is further submitted that the PRP is basically on the basis of circular of the year 2008 which is meant for other Public Sector Undertakings and not for CIL only. The circular of the year 2008 was again discussed at length, looking to the rival claims and it was reiterated in the year 2009 to follow the said circular of the year 2008. Even after 2009 also, various issues have been raised about the PRP and now the matter is under active consideration before the Committee of Ministers and, hence, this Public Interest Litigation may not be entertained by this Court.;