Allowed

Usha W/O Raju Turankar and Another v. General Manager Western Coalfields Ltd., Majri Area, Chandrapur and Others

Bombay HC10 Nov 2023WP/7703/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order rejecting a married daughter's claim for employment, directing reconsideration in the context of its own recent judgment, while reserving finality pending the Supreme Court's outcome on an appeal against that precedent.

What did the court decide?

Communication dated 10.03.2023 set aside; direction to reconsider application within eight weeks.

Usha W/O Raju Turankar and Another Vs General… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-NAG:16514-DB

¶2

14 WP-7703-2023

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7703 OF 2023

¶6

[Usha Raju Turankar and Ors. ..V/s.. General Manager, Western Coalfields Ltd. and Ors.]

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶8

Shri S. V. Sohoni, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri A. M. Ghare, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶9

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 10th NOVEMBER, 2023.

¶10

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. On the motion made by the learned counsel for petitioners, name of respondent No.4 is permitted to be deleted.

¶11

Shri A. M. Ghare, learned counsel waives notice for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶12

The challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the communication dated 10.03.2023 by which the claim of the petitioner No.1 for grant of employment under Clause 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement has not been accepted.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon the decision in Ku. Shimla d/o Late Satiram Rajbhar and Anr. vs.

¶14

Western Coalfields Limited and Ors. Writ Petition No.4074 of

¶15

2018 decided on 20.01.2023 submits that it would not be permissible for the respondents to disregard the claim made by married daughter of the land owner. Without considering the effect of the aforesaid judgment, the application has been rejected. He therefore seeks reconsideration of the said application in accordance with what has been held in the said judgment.

¶16

The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayers made in the writ petition. According to him, the relevant

TAMBE

14 WP-7703-2023

Clauses of National Coal Wage Agreement do not entitle the married daughter to seek employment and the issuance of the communication dated 10.03.2023 is valid. He further submits that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is the subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶21

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the claim of the petitioner No.1 requires reconsideration in the light of what has been held in Ku. Shimla Satiram Rajbhar (supra). The very same Clause on which the petitioner No.1’s claim has been refused has been considered in the said decision and it has been held that unmarried daughter/married sister would be entitled to seek employment. It is true that challenge to the aforesaid decision is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, till further orders are passed in the said proceedings, petitioner No.1’s claim can be reconsidered in the light of what has been held in the said judgment. This is for the reason that presently there is no order staying the operation of the said judgment.

¶22

For aforesaid reasons, the communication dated 10.03.2023 is set aside. It is directed that the respondents shall reconsider the petitioner No.1’s application dated 27.02.2023 in the light of the judgment of this Court in Ku. Shimla Satiram Rajbhar (supra). Such decision would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

¶23

A fresh decision on the said representation be taken within a period of eight weeks from receiving copy of the order.

¶24

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

¶25

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶26

TAMBE

Usha W/O Raju Turankar and Another v. General Manager Western Coalfields Ltd., Majri Area, Chandrapur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha W/O Raju Turankar and Another v. General Manager Western Coalfields Ltd., Majri Area, Chandrapur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Bharti D/O. Manohar Sherkar @ Sau. Bharti W/O. Giridhar Deogade Vs the S. T., Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division Thr. Member Secretary, Nagpur

Smt. Bharti D/O. Manohar Sherkar @ Sau. Bharti W/O. Giridhar Deogade Vs the Additional Collector, Nagpur and Others

Mukesh Kumar Vs Union of India, Thr. the Director General, Railway Police Force, New Delhi and Others

Apurva Manohar Kumbhalkar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Medical Education and Medicine Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Saniya Fatima Rahman D/O Mohd. Naeemur Rahman and Another Vs the National Medical Commission Thr. Secretary, New Delhi and Ors.

Tanmay Rakesh Bhugaonkar Vs the National Medical Commission, Thr. Secretary, New Delhi and Others