Smt. v. Shashi Prabha Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

The Sub General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Office of General Manager (Mining) Kusmunda Project, “A Mini Ratan Company”, Post Kusmunda Colliery, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

The Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Office of General Manager (Mining) Kusmunda Project, “A Mini Ratan Company”, Post Kusmunda Colliery, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner :- Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate. For Respondents :- Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

¶17

03/02/2025

¶18

The petitioner being a daughter of late R. Krishna Kumar Naidu, who was working as Auto Fitter died in harness, has filed this writ petition seeking dependent employment.

¶19

2

¶20

WPS No. 4835 of 2016

¶21

Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, would sbumit that even if the monetary compensation has been granted to the petitioner’s mother R. Barkha Naidu w.e.f. 01.11.2013 which has been paid upto January, 2022, the petitioner being the daughter of the deceased SECL servant, is entitled for dependant employement and, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶22

Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that application of the petitioner’s mother requesting for dependant employment to the petitioner has already been rejected on 19.10.2015 vide Annexure R/3, which has not been challenged by the petitioner and even otherwise, the petitioner’s mother has already granted monetary companssionate which she availed from 01.11.2013 to January, 2022, therefore, the instnat writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶24

It is not in dispute that though the petitioner’s mother had earlier claimed for dependant employement for her daughter however, meanwhile she made representation

¶25

3

¶26

WPS No. 4835 of 2016

¶27

requesting monetary compensation in lieu of dependant employement which she was granted and she accepted the monetary companssionate in lieu of the dependant employment which was granted to her upto the age of 60 years i.e. from 01.11.2013 to January, 2022, almost 9 years, therefore, the petitioner’s application for dependant employment has been rejected by the respondent-SECL on 19.10.2015 vide Annexure R/3 stating that the respondentSECL has already granted monetary compensation to the petitioner’s mothers, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for dependant employment. However, at this stage it would be appropriate to notice principles of law laid down by this Court in the matter of Laxmi Narayan Verma. v. South

¶28

Eastern Coalfield Ltd., and others1 followed in the matter of Bhagwan Singh v. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., through its Chairman and others2 in which this Court has held as under in paragraph No.8 & 9 as under:-

¶29

“8. In the present case, the petitioner was only 10 years 19 days of age when his father expired, therefore, clause 9.5.0(iii) of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI would also not be applicable to him and furthermore, undisputedly, the petitioner’s mother had already accepted the monetary compensation till the petitioner attains the age of majority i.e. 18 years and therefore the principle of law laid down in the matter of Laxmi Narayan Verma

¶30

1 2016 SCC OnLine Chh 2116

¶31

2 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 4279

¶32

4

¶33

WPS No. 4835 of 2016

¶34

v. South Eastern Coalfield Ltd. and others (supra) would apply in which this Court has held in paragraph 15 as under: -

¶35

“15. Having noticed the doctrine of election, which is based on rule of estoppel, leads me to advert to the factual matrix of the case. As per Clause 9.5.2 (ii) of the NCWA-V, the petitioner/his mother had the option either to claim monetary compensation or to claim dependant employment. It appears from the record that the petitioner's mother was granted monetary compensation by SECL authorities by order dated 3.1.1995, which she accepted without protest, though later on she made a request for making the option of employment open for his son (petitioner) upon attaining majority, but the fact remains that the petitioner’s mother having been granted benefit of monetary compensation by order of the SECL, which she accepted the same till date and thereby derived the advantage by accepting the monetary compensation, now she cannot turn round and claim that her son be granted dependant employment. The petitioner and his mother both are precluded now to contend for dependent employment as per Clause 9.5.0 (ii) of the NCWA-V as they have not only opted as per NCWA, but also derived advantage flowing from order of SECL and as such, doctrine of estoppel by election, which is one of the species of estoppels in pais (or equitable estoppel) squarely applies to the facts of the present case and thereby the respondent-SECL & its authorities are absolutely justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for dependent employment. I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the said order.”

¶36

Since the petitioner was entitled to be kept in live roster as per the NCWA provided he is 12 years / 15 years of age on the date of death of his father and his mother had already accepted the monetary compensation, in light of the principle of law laid

¶37

5

¶38

WPS No. 4835 of 2016

¶39

down in Laxmi Narayan Verma (supra), the petitioner cannot claim dependent employment and the respondent SECL is absolutely justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for dependent employment. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).”

¶40

Since the petitioner’s mother has already availed the monetary compensation as per the Clause 9 of the National Coal Wages Act for a fairly long time i.e. from 01.11.2013 to January 2022 almost 9 years, it would be unfair to direct the respondent-SECL to grant dependant employement to the petitioner at this stage in light of the principle of law laid down in the matter of Laxmi Narayan Verma (supra) followed in the matter of Bhagwan Singh (supra) Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶43

Ankit

Smt. v. Shashi Prabha v South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. v. Shashi Prabha v South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Radheshyam Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs M/s B. P. Dwivedi

Lallu Prasad Jaiswal Vs Ram Bharosh

Bir Singh Nishad Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Jagdish Narayan Gupta (through Legal Representatives) (I) Indu Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kaushilya Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh