Dismissed

Gendram Nirala v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jul 2023WA/647/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed appeals challenging a lower court order granting dependent employment to the widow's nominated daughter. The court affirmed the order, citing the deceased's agreement clause and the appellant's existing contractual engagement.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals were dismissed, affirming the impugned order granting dependent employment to Ku. Anita Nirala.

Gendram Nirala Vs South Eastern… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 647 of 2022

¶4

Gendram Nirala S/o Late Shri Tulsiram, Aged about 34 years (at present aged about 39 years), Caste Satnami (SC), R/o Bhilai Bazar, Near High School, Post Bhilai Bazar, Police Station Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, Civil and Revenue District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

--Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, through the Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Civil and Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Sub Area Manager, SECL Rajgamar, Tahsil, Civil and Revenue District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Regional Manager Coal Mines Future Fund Office, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil, Civil and Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Samarin Bai W/o Late Tulsiram, Aged about 54 years, Caste Satnami, R/o Bhilai Bazar, Near High School, Post Bhilai Bazar, Police Station Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, Civil and Revenue District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Anita D/o Late Tulsiram, Aged about 25 years, Caste Satnami, R/o Bhilai Bazar, Near High School, Post Bhilai Bazar, Police Station Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, Civil and Revenue District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Sunita D/o Late Tulsiram, Aged about 23 years, Caste Satnami, R/o Bhilai Bazar, Near High School, Post Bhilai Bazar, Police Station Kusmunda, Tahsil

¶13

¶14

Katghora, Civil and Revenue District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

Santram S/o Late Tulsiram, Aged about 4 years, Minor through Natural Guardian Mother Samarin Bai W/o Late Tulsiram, Caste Satnami, R/o Bhilai Bazar, Near High School, Post Bhilai Bazar, Police Station Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, Civil and Revenue District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

Gesbai D/o Late Tulsiram, Aged about 35 years, Caste Satnami, R/o Bhilai Bazar, Near High School, Post Bhilai Bazar, Police Station Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, Civil and Revenue District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

---Respondents

¶18

Writ Appeal No. 651 of 2022

--Appellant

Versus

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, through the Chief Manager (Min)/SAM Rajgamar Sub-area, Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶23

South Eastern Coalfields Limited through its General Manager, Office of the Sub Area Manager, Rajgamar, Sub Area, PO Rajgamar Colliery, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 495683.

¶24

Ku. Anita Nirala D/o Late Tulsiram Nirala, Aged about 27 years, R/o Qtr. No. M-106, Ompur Colony, Post

¶25

¶26

Rajgamar Colony, Rajgamar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶27

---Respondents

¶28

For Appellant :- Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2/SECL :-

¶29

Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate

¶30

For Respondent No. 3 in WA/647/2022 :-

¶31

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶32

Judgment on Board 07/07/2023

¶33

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶34

Since common question of fact and law is involved in both of these appeals as they have arisen out of common impugned order and since the appellant in both of these appeals is one and the same, therefore, they are clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

¶35

Both of these writ appeals are directed against common order dated 01/11/2022 passed in WPS No. 5719/2016 and connected matters whereby learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition preferred by Ku. Anita Nirala whereas dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein namely Gendram Nirala.

¶36

¶37

The instant appeals have been filed by the appellant Gendram Nirala on the following factual backdrop :-

¶38

3.1. Late Shri Tulsiram Nirala, being an SECL employee, died in harness on 14/08/2015, while working as U.G. Munshi (Clerical Grade-II 6 & 7 Incline, Rajgamar Colliery), leaving behind his one son Gendram Nirala (appellant herein) who was born out of his wedlock with his first wife Radha Bai and one daughter Ku. Anita Nirala, who was born out his wedlock with his second wife Samrin Bai (not mentioning the name of other LRs. as they are not relevant in the case at hand).

¶39

3.2. Upon the death of Shri Tulsiram Nirala, respondent SECL informed Samrin Bai, being the spouse of Shri Tulsiram Nirala, and asked her to make application either for dependent employment or for claiming monetary compensation in lieu of dependent employment to which she did not respond as meanwhile, dispute had arisen between Gendram Nirala and Ku. Anita Nirala for claiming dependent employment but the respondent SECL did not consider their case favourably which led Ku. Anita Nirala to file WPS No. 5719/2016 and Gendram Nirala to file WPS No. 2183/2017 and WPS No. 3691/2017 before this Court.

¶40

¶41

3.3. Learned Single Judge decided the three petitions together by common order dated 01/11/2022 thereby allowing the petition filed by Ku. Anita Nirala and dismissing the petitions filed by Gendram Nirala holding that since he is already working on contractual basis, therefore, as per the Chapter 9 of the National Coal Wage Agreement VI, he will not be entitled for dependent employment and Ku. Anita Nirala, daughter of Late Tulsiram Nirala, will be entitled for dependent employment.

¶42

3.4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by learned Single Judge, Gendram Nirala the appellant herein preferred the instant appeals against dismissal of his writ petition and against grant of writ petition filed by Ku. Anita Nirala and this is how the instant appeals came to be filed by the appellant before this Court.

¶43

Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the appellant in both the writ appeals, would submit that learned Single Judge is absolutely unjustified in granting the writ petition preferred by Ku. Anita Nirala as she is not entitled and rather he is entitled for dependent employment, being the son of Late Tulsiram Nirala, born out of his wedlock with his first wife Radha Bai. He would also submit that the appellant Gendram Nirala was employed though on contractual basis which has

¶44

¶45

not been extended further as on date, therefore, he is entitled for dependent employment and the instant appeals be allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge.

¶46

Mr. Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2/SECL, would submit that SECL has already filed a detailed affidavit on 06/07/2023 and in that light, this Hon'ble Court may pass an appropriate order as it may deem fit.

¶47

None appears on behalf of respondent Ku. Anita Nirala, though she herself appeared before the Court on the last date of hearing.

¶48

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶49

True it is that Late Tulsiram Nirala died in harness on 14/08/2015 while he was working as U.G. Munshi (clerical grade – II 6 & 7 Incline, Rajgamar Colliery) under the respondent SECL. Before his death, he entered the name of his second wife Samrin Bai and the names of his children Gendram Nirala (son), Anita Nirala (daughter), Sunita Nirala (daughter) and Ashok Kumar Nirala (son) as his family members in Form PS-3 in his service record (Annexure R/1 & 2-4).

¶50

¶51

Dependent employment for an SECL employee is governed by National Coal Wage Agreement VI and under Clause 9.3.3., the particulars of the dependent of a deceased are mentioned as under :-

¶52

“9.3.3. the dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-inlaw or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependant on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependant of the deceased. ”

¶53

10. In the instant case, as per the official record of deceased

¶54

Tulsiram Nirala, his dependents as per Form PS-3 are his wife Smt Samrin Bai, his sons Gendram Nirala and Ashok Kumar Nirala and his daughters Ku. Anita Nirala and Ku. Sunita Nirala and as per the circular dated 23/12/2021 (Annexure R/1&2-6) issued by the competent authority of the respondent SECL, it is prescribed therein that the first nominee only would be eligible to decide as to which family member/dependent would be given employment/compassionate employment. Smt. Samrin Bai (widow of deceased Tulsiram Nirala), being the first nominee, submitted an affidavit on 08/11/2015 in which she has nominated her daughter Ku. Anita Nirala for grant of dependent employment. Even otherwise, as per clause 9.3.3 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI, wife/husband and

¶55

¶56

thereafter, the unmarried daughter would be entitled for dependent employment and since Smt. Samrin Bai (widow of deceased Tulsiram Nirala) herself has nominated her daughter Ku. Anita Nirala for grant of dependent employment, therefore, she would clearly be entitled for the same, also for the reason that learned Single Judge has already recorded a finding that appellant Gendram Nirala is already working on contractual basis under National Rural Health Mission at Primary Health Center, Kartala, therefore, in that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that Ku. Anita Nirala would be entitled for dependent employment in terms of clause 9.3.3 of the National Coal Wage Agreement – VI. We hereby affirm the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge for the reasons mentioned herein-above.

¶57

11. Accordingly, both of these appeals, deserve to be and are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

¶58

Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶59

Harneet

Gendram Nirala v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gendram Nirala v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

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

Chaindas Chaturvedi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Naman Tiwari Vs Mr. T.R. Koshima

Dilip Kumar Banjare Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Umesh Thakur

Laxmi Narayan Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gendram Nirala Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited.-