Dismissed

Central Coalfields Limited through Its General Manager Legal Partha Bhattacharjee v. Most Prabha Devi

Jharkhand HC22 Nov 2022LPA/6/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this intra-court appeal arising from a writ petition concerning death family benefits under the National Coal Wage Agreement, the High Court held that the rejection of a son's compassionate appointment claim does not bar a deceased employee's widow above 45 years from claiming monetary compensation. The court upheld the Single Judge's direction to the Central Coalfields Limited.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the single judge's order directing the employer to grant monetary compensation.

Central Coalfields Limited through Its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

L.P.A. No. 06 of 2022

¶4

with I.A. No. 1470 of 2022

¶5

1. Central Coalfields Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered Office at Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S. – Kotwali, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand), through its Chairman-cumManaging Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S. – Kotwali, District –Ranchi (Jharkhand) and also through its Partha Bhattacharjee, aged about 58 years, son of Late P.C. Bhattacharjee, residing at 34, Pragati Enclave, Dibdih, PO-Doranda, PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi -834002 (Jharkhand) General Manager (Legal). 2.Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S. – Kotwali, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶6

3.General Manager (P&IR), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S. – Kotwali, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶7

4.The General Manager, Barka Sayal Area, Central Coalfields Limited, AT & PO- Sayal, PS –Bhurkunda, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

¶8

5.The Project Officer, Sayal “D” Colliery, Central Coalfields Limited, At Sayal, PO-Sayal, PS-Bhurkunda, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

¶9

6.The Welfare Officer, Sayal “D” Colliery, Central Coalfields Limited, At Sayal, PO-Sayal, PS-Bhurkunda, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

¶10

… … Respondents/ Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Most. Prabha Devi, aged about 54 years, wife of Damodar Kandhu, resident of P.O.-Sayal “D” Colliery, Siyal, Bhurkunda, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

¶13

… Writ Petitioner/Respondent

¶14

¶15

CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶16

¶17

For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate -------

¶18

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT Order No. 04: Dated 22^nd November, 2022

¶20

I.A. No. 1470 of 2022

¶21

The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 8 (eight) days in filing the instant appeal.

¶22

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

¶23

3. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

¶24

4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1470 of 2022 is allowed and delay of 8 (eight) days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

¶25

L.P.A. No. 06 of 2022

¶26

5. The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against the order/judgment dated 05.02.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 820 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the writ petition was disposed of holding the writ petitioner entitled for the monthly compensation in terms of Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA and directed the appellants-CCL to pass reasoned order

¶27

¶28

within a period of twelve weeks and extend the benefit within the aforesaid period.

¶29

6. The brief facts of the case, as per pleadings made in the writ petition, read as hereunder:

¶30

The petitioner is wife of late Damodar Kandu, who was Timber Helper, Cat-II in Sayal “D” Colliery, Central Coalfields Limited, Bhurkunda, Ramgarh. The husband of the petitioner died in harness on 11.12.1999. After death of her husband, son of the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground, which was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for monetary benefit in terms of Clause 9.5.0. (ii) of the National Coal Wage Agreement (in short ‘NCWA’) VI but no decision was taken, which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 820 of 2020.

¶31

The writ petitioner contended before the writ Court that since she is a female above age of 45 years as such, as per provisions of NCWA, she is entitled to monetary compensation even after rejection of claim of appointment on compassionate ground.

¶32

The appellants-CCL submitted before the writ Court that the case of the petitioner’s son for appointment on compassionate ground had already

¶33

¶34

been rejected and only thereafter, the petitioner applied for monetary benefits under NCWA, as such the case of the petitioner is fit to be rejected.

¶35

The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the parties and also the provisions of Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA, disposed of the writ petition holding the writ petitioner entitled for the monthly compensation in terms of Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA and directed the appellantsCCL to pass reasoned order and extend the benefit within the stipulated period of time, which is the subject matter of present intra court appeal.

¶36

7. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-CCL has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the claim for monetary compensation in terms of Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA has been made only after rejection of claim for appointment on compassionate ground of petitioner’s son and by taking such decision since the claim for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the appellants-CCL and as such the reason upon which such order of rejection has been made ought not to have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge by directing the appellants-CCL to pass

¶37

¶38

reasoned order and pay the monetary compensation in terms of Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA.

¶39

It is in this backdrop, submission has been made that order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from error and as such requires interference.

¶40

8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellantsCCL, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by learned Single Judge.

¶41

9 . The issue, which requires consideration by this Court is as to whether the decision rejecting the monetary compensation to be paid in terms of Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA VI on the ground that the claim of the son of the deceased-employee since has been rejected and thereafter claiming the monetary benefit in terms of the aforesaid clause as under 9.5.0 of the NCWA VI ought to have been entertained?

¶42

10 . This Court, in order to answer the aforesaid issue requires to go through the submissions under Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA VI, which reads as under:

¶43

“9.5.0 Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependent.

¶44

(ii).In case of death/total permanent disablement due to causes other than mine accident and medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0 if the female dependent is below the age of 45 years, will have the option

¶45

¶46

either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs.3000/- per month or employment.

¶47

In case the female dependent is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment.”

¶48

It is evident from the stipulation made under Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA that in case of death/total permanent disablement due to causes other than mine accident and medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0 if the female dependent is below the age of 45 years, will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs.3000/- per month or employment. In case the female dependent is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment.

¶49

It is, thus, evident that the stipulation under Clause 9.5.0 does not speak that if the claim of appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected the female dependent will not be entitled for compensation in terms of the aforesaid clause rather it has been agreed upon between the parties that the monetary compensation in terms of Clause 9.5.0 is required to be paid to the female dependent who is below the age of 45 years who will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs.3000/- per

¶50

¶51

month or employment. However, if the female dependent is above the age of 45 years, she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment.

¶52

However, in the given facts of the case, the son of the deceased-employee applied for appointment on compassionate ground i.e. with respect to condition stipulated under clause 9.3.0 but the same was rejected and only thereafter, the application has been field by the female dependent under Clause 9.5.0 seeking therein the monetary benefit.

¶53

Condition stipulated under Clause 9.3.2, if read together with 9.5.0 it will be evident that clause 9.5.0 stipulates a condition about appointment or monetary compensation subject to the condition if the female dependent has attained the age of 45 years there will be no appointment on compassionate ground.

¶54

It is, therefore, clear from bare perusal of Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA that the appointment on compassionate ground if rejected it has got no bearing with the decision to be taken by the authority for extending the monetary benefit in favour of the female dependent. The only condition which is required to be seen while extending the benefit of monetary compensation in favour of the female dependent that the

¶55

¶56

monetary compensation will be paid if the female dependent has attained the age of 45 years.

¶57

Here, in the given facts of the case, the appointment on compassionate ground to be claimed in favour of son of the deceased-employee has been rejected and as such it is not a case where appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected and, therefore, the ground taken by the respondent-authority that since the claim of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground has been rejected, therefore, the writ petitioner will not be entitled for monetary compensation in the capacity of female dependent of the deceased-employee is not the spirit of Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA.

¶58

11 . This Court having discussed the aforesaid fact travelled to the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and found therefrom that the learned Single Judge has minutely analyzed the scope and implication of the condition stipulated under Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA and as such issued direction upon the appellants-CCL to pass a reasoned order with respect to the claim of the writ petitioner for monetary compensation and release the same within a period of twelve months. The aforesaid finding since is based

¶59

¶60

upon the critical analysis of clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA, which according to our considered view suffers form no error.

¶61

12 . Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶62

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

¶63

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Alankar / N.A.F.R.

Central Coalfields Limited through Its General Manager Legal Partha Bhattacharjee v. Most Prabha Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Coalfields Limited through Its General Manager Legal Partha Bhattacharjee v. Most Prabha Devi

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

Annu Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary

Smt Shaila Devi Alias Shaila Kumar and Anr. Vs Railways

The Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through Prabhat Kumar Srivastava Vs Vexcel Upkram Private Limited

Sunil Kumar Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand Throguh the Secretary Department of Home

Ms Rani Sati Rice Mills through Its Proprietor Mukesh Kumar Gaddhyan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kameshwar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.