Dismissed

Rajib Sekhar Nath and Anr. v. the Chairman, Coal India Ltd. and Anr.

Gauhati HC17 May 2022WP(C)/7750/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the failure to constitute a medical board for the petitioner. Finding the petitioner had already superannuated and the specific agreement clause was inoperative, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to turn back time and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Rajib Sekhar Nath and Anr. Vs the Chairman… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010086162020

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2568/2020

¶5

RUPAN ACHARJEE AND ANR.

¶6

S/O- KANU ACHARJEE, R/O- LEDO ROAD GAON, NEAR KALI MANDIR, P.O. LEDO, MARGHERITA, DIST.- TINSUKIA, ASSAM- 786182

¶7

2: KANU ACHARJEE S/O- LT. NIKUNJA BIHARI ACHARJEE R/O- LEDO ROAD GAON NEAR KALI MANDIR P.O. LEDO MARGHERITA DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM- 78618

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE CHAIRMAN, COAL INDIA LTD. AND 2 ORS.

¶10

COAL INDIA LTD. HEAD OFFICE, COAL BHAWAN, PREMISE NO-04 MAR, PLOT NO-AF-III, ACTION AREA-1A, NEWTOWN, RAJARHAT, KOLKATA700156

¶11

2:THE GENERAL MANAGER OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EASTERN COALFIELDS COAL INDIA LTD. MARGHERITA TINSUKIA ASSAM 786181

¶12

3:THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECY. MINISTRY OF COAL GOVT. OF INDIA SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI

¶13

Page No.# 2/6

¶14

PIN- 11000

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S S S RAHMAN

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, COAL INDIA

¶17

Linked Case : WP(C)/7750/2019

¶18

RAJIB SEKHAR NATH AND ANR. S/O- JAWHAR NATH R/O- AUDIT COLONY M/175 MARGHERITA TINSUKIA ASSAM- 786181. 2: JAWHAR NATH S/O- MANMOHAN NATH R/O- AUDIT COLONY M/175 MARGHERITA TINSUKIA ASSAM- 786181. VERSUS THE CHAIRMAN COAL INDIA LTD. AND ANR. COAL INDIA LIMITED HEAD OFFICE COAL BHAWAN PREMISE NO. -04 MAR PLOT NO. AF-III ACTION AREA-1A NEWTOWN RAJARHAT KOLKATA- 700156.

¶19

2:THE GENERAL MANAGER OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EASTERN COALFIELDS COAL INDIA LIMITED MARGHERITA TINSUKIA ASSAM 786181.

¶20

Page No.# 3/6

¶21

-----------Advocate for : MR. S S S RAHMAN Advocate for : SC COAL INDIA appearing for THE CHAIRMAN COAL INDIA LTD. AND ANR.

¶22

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 17-05-2022

¶25

Heard Mr. Z. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Dutta, learned senior counsel and Mr. C.S. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶26

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to constitute a Central Medical Board and consider the case of the petitioner no.2 on merit for providing him the benefit as per clause 9.4.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement-IX.

¶27

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner no.2 was an employee of Central Store NEC of the North Eastern Coalfields, Margherita. In course of service, the petitioner no.2 suffered from spino cerebeller ataxia with cerebro with cerebro vascular accident having with severe neurological deficit with 75% disability. It is projected that as per the National Coal Wage Agreement-IX dated 31.01.2012, the petitioner no.2 would have been entitled to superannuate on medical grounds and the petitioner no.1, being one of the dependents of petitioner no.2, would have become entitled for employment in lieu of the petitioner no.2, on his being 75% disabled. In this regard, the learned counsel

¶28

Page No.# 4/6

¶29

for the petitioner has referred to clause 9.4.0 of the Chapter IX of the National Coal Wage Agreement-IX. It is projected that the medical practitioner of the North Eastern Coalfields was on leave and therefore, by letter dated 03.05.2016, the competent authority had requested the Chief Medical Services, NEC, Margherita to constitute a medical board for examination of the petitioner no.2, but no action was taken and the matter was delayed. Accordingly, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) 855/2018 and this Court by order dated 18.01.2019, while closing the writ petition granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the General Manager, North Eastern Coal Fields and it was provided that if the said authority had no competence or authority, he shall forward such representation to the competent authority who shall dispose of the representation within a period of 2(two) months from the finalisation of the scheme for employment or financial benefits to the dependants in respect of “social security of 10^th Wage Agreement for CIL and HCCN-provisions of employment/ payment of monthly monetary compensation to dependent scheme” or any substituted scheme in force. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Court afresh.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that more than 5 years has lapsed in filing of an application by the petitioner no.2, but though he was examined by the Medical Board constituted for the purpose, his case was never considered by the respondent authorities. Hence, it is submitted that it would be fit and proper case for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to have the petitioner no.2 medically examined and in the event he is found unfit on the relevant date, suitable direction be issued to the respondent authorities to grant benefit to the petitioner on merit so as to provide him the

¶31

Page No.# 5/6

¶32

benefit as per Clause 9.4.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement in form of offer of employment of the petitioner no.1. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that in the rest of the Country, the respondent authorities have implemented Clause 9.4.0.

¶33

Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the respondents has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents and it is submitted that the National Coal Wage Agreement-IX was no longer in force and was superseded by National Coal Wage Agreement-VI dated 23.12.2000.

¶34

However, it is submitted that a specific stand has been taken in para-8 of the affidavit-in-opposition that clause 9.4.0 of the said agreement was inoperative in North Eastern Coal Fields. It is also submitted that on 30.09.2018, the petitioner no.2 had already retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief. It is also submitted that in the RTI reply, the respondent authorities had informed the petitioner that Clause 9.4.0 was inoperative in North Eastern Coal Fields.

¶35

On a perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner on 02.02.2021, from Agenda No.10 of the minutes dated 13.07.2018 (Annexure-4), it appears that in respect of Clause 9.4.0, the Committee constituted under 10^th Wage Agreement for CIL and SCCL was yet to finalise the scheme for employment or financial benefits to the dependent and the Committee was requested to finalise its report/ recommendations at the earliest tentatively by

¶36

Page No.# 6/6

¶37

31.10.2018. Therefore, on 30.09.2018, the date on which the petitioner no.2 had superannuated, there is no doubt that Clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement had not been implemented in North Eastern Coalfields including Central Store NEC. Although, the petitioner no.2 had superannuated on 30.09.2018, but in the earlier round of litigation, the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Court when order dated 18.01.2019 was passed in WP(C) 855/2018. Therefore, as the petitioner had already superannuated on 30.09.2018, the Court would have no power of jurisdiction to turn the clock back and to direct the respondent authorities to treat the petitioner to be notionally in service and then to issue a direction for constituting a Central Medical Board for examination of the petitioner to assess his entitlement under Clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement in as much as on 31.08.2018, Clause 9.4.0 thereof was inoperative.

¶38

Therefore, the Court does not find the petitioners to be entitled to any relief in view of the fact that the petitioner no.2 had already superannuated on 30.09.2018 and this writ petition was filed on 27.09.2019.

¶39

The writ petition stands dismissed.

¶40

The parties are left to bear their own cost.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Rajib Sekhar Nath and Anr. v. the Chairman, Coal India Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajib Sekhar Nath and Anr. v. the Chairman, Coal India Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tana Susan and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 12 Ors.

Ano Umpe and 115 Ors. Vs The Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner and Anr.

M/s Ngarsee Torio Enterprise Vs M/s M.K. Enterprise and 4 Ors.

Mihindra Narayan Konwar and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Rupan Acharjee and Anr. Vs the Chairman, Coal India Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Saraswati Khakhlary Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.