NDLI: Shanti Devi Alias Shanti Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act s. 20 1948 CPC Article 226 1998 Family Coal Mines Pension Scheme Territorial jurisdiction
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India, Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Code of Civil Procedure –s. 20 – Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous ProvisionsAct, 1948 – Family Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 – Territorialjurisdiction – The Government notified a Family Coal Mines PensionScheme, 1998 dated 05.03.1998 – Earlier, the late husband of theappellant did not opt for the said pension scheme – However, laterthe husband of appellant opted for the pension scheme by notificationdated 09.01.2002 – The late husband of the appellant claimedpayment for pension from Darbhanga, State of Bihar – A writ petitionwas filed by the husband of the appellant in Patna High Courtwhere prayed for grant of refund of Rs.1,33,559/- which waswrongly withheld/ illegally deducted from him – The said writ petitionwas dismissed on 08.02.2013 on the ground of lack of territorialjurisdiction – After dismissal of the said writ petition, the husbandof appellant filed writ petition in Jharkhand High Court for thesame relief – Thereafter, letters dated 07.10.2013 and 06.11.2013were issued from the office of Regional Provident FundCommissioner to the husband of the appellant – The letter statedthat since husband of appellant initially had not opted for pensionscheme in pursuance of 1998 notification, he could not have optedfor pension in the year 2002 – It was further stated that pensionwas erroneously settled by Regional Commissioner, hence, more thanRs.08 lakhs was to be recovered from the husband of the appellant– It was also communicated through same letters that it was decidedto stop payment of monthly pension w.e.f. November, 2013 –Husband of appellant filed another writ petition in Patna High Courtwhere he challenged the letters dated 07.10.2013 and 06.11.2013– The Single Judge of the High Court after noticing the earlierorder of the High Court dated 08.02.2013 and observing that afterdismissal of writ petition, the petitioner had filed another writpetition before the Jharkhand High court and the same was pending,held that the order of stoppage of pension is part of retirementbenefit, and petitioner ought to have filed the writ petition beforethe Jharkhand High Court – Hence, the writ petition challengingletters was again dismissed on ground of lack of territorialjurisdiction – The LPA filed against the order of the Single Judgewas also dismissed – On appeal, held: The Single Judge of theHigh Court did not correctly consider the facts and pleadings inthe writ petitions filed – The earlier writ petition was filed for refundof wrongly withheld/ illegally detained amount and the subsequentwrit petition challenging letters dated 07.10.2013 and 06.11.2013was filed when payment of pension after 08 years was stopped andhusband of appellant was directed to return the amount of morethan Rs.08 Lakhs – The cause of action for filing a subsequent writpetition was entirely different – The Single Judge of the High Courtcommitted error in dismissing the subsequent writ petition becauseof dismissal of earlier writ petition on the ground of lack of territorialjurisdiction – For a retiree, who is settled and receiving pension atDarbhanga, it cannot be said that it was necessary for him to filehis petition in the Jharkhand High Court where his earlier writpetition was pending – The part cause of action had arisen in theterritorial jurisdiction of Patna High Court as the husband ofappellant was continuously receiving pension for last 8 years inDarbhanga – The stoppage of pension at the same place gave acause of action – Thus, the said writ petition is revived at the PatnaHigh Court.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 632
Petitioner	Shanti Devi Alias Shanti Mishra
Respondent	Union Of India & Ors.
SCR	[2020] 12 S.C.R. 279
Judgement Date	2020-11-05
Case Number	3630

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Shanti Devi Alias Shanti Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

The Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948

Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner Dhanbad & Other Vs. J. Lala & Sons

कोयला खान भविष्य-निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंधअधिनियम, 1948

Chief Mining Engineer East India Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. Rameswar and Ors.

Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Ramesh Chander Jha

State of Bihar Vs. S. K. Roy

Employers in Relation to The Bhowra Colliery Vs. their Workmen

M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen & Ors.

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur Vs. M/s. Naraini Udyog and Ors.

Shanti Devi Alias Shanti Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Shanti Devi Alias Shanti Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

The Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948

Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner Dhanbad & Other Vs. J. Lala & Sons

कोयला खान भविष्य-निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंधअधिनियम, 1948

Chief Mining Engineer East India Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. Rameswar and Ors.

Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Ramesh Chander Jha

State of Bihar Vs. S. K. Roy

Employers in Relation to The Bhowra Colliery Vs. their Workmen

M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen & Ors.

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur Vs. M/s. Naraini Udyog and Ors.

Shanti Devi Alias Shanti Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors.