Allowed

Arti Devi v. Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited Represented through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Jharkhand HC10 Jun 2022WPC/283/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed an interlocutory application to amend a writ petition. Relying on a prior Division Bench judgment, the court held the petitioner entitled to monetary compensation from her husband's date of death and set aside an order denying this relief, directing payment within three months.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is entitled to monetary compensation from the date of her husband's death (August 26, 2008). The respondents must disburse the amount within three months.

Arti Devi Vs Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W. P. (S) No. 283 of 2020 With

¶4

I.A. No. 4298 of 2021

¶5

Arti Devi, aged about 54 years, wife of Late Ashok Kumar Sahay, Resident of Rani Bazar Katras, P.O.- Katrasgarh, P.S.-Katras, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus

¶6

M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Represented through its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, At-Koyla Bhawan, P.O.Koyla Nagar, P.S.-Saraidhela, Dist.-Dhanbad.

¶7

The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. At-Koyla Bhawan, P.O.-Koyla Nagar, P.S.-Saraidhela, Dist.Dhanbad.

¶8

The Director (Personnel), M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. At-Koyla Bhawan, P.O.-Koyla Nagar, P.S.-Saraidhela, Dist.-Dhanbad.

¶9

The General Manager, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Govindpur Area, At-Govindpur, P.O.-Sonardih, P.S.-Madhuban, Dist.Dhanbad.

¶10

The Project Officer, Amalgamated Block IV/Govindpur Colliery, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited Area, At-Govindur, P.O.Sonardih, P.S.-Katras, Dist.-Dhanbad.

¶11

… … Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

¶14

04/10.06.2022

¶15

1. Heard Mr. Niranjan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶16

2. Heard Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

¶18

“for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) upon the concerned respondent for payment of Monetary Compensation as per clause 9. of NCWA from the date of death of her husband along with its entire arrear as the petitioner has been paid the CMPF amount and family Pension and she was asked to give her consent for accepting the payment of Monetary Compensation and but despite of giving her consent, she has not been paid the Monetary Compensation unreasonably till date.

¶19

AND/OR

¶20

For any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.”

¶21

¶22

I.A. No. 4298 of 2021

¶23

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of this writ petition, a letter dated 31.07.2020 has been issued by the respondent No.-5, wherein the respondents have refused to give the monetary compensation from the date of death of her husband.

¶24

5. The learned counsel submits that an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 4298 of 2021 has been filed seeking amendment of the writ petition challenging the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2020, which may be allowed.

¶25

6. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the aforesaid development which has been brought on record by I.A. No. 4298/2021, is subsequent development, which has been taken place during the pendency of the present case.

¶26

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact and circumstances of this case, I.A. No. 4298/2021 seeking amendment of the writ petition challenging the order dated 31.07.2020, is hereby allowed and the interlocutory application is directed to be treated as a part of the main writ petition.

¶27

W.P.(S) No. 283 of 2020

¶28

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 657/2018 dated 07.07.2020, wherein it has been held that the monetary compensation in terms of National Coal Wage Agreement under clause 9.5.0 is to be paid from the date of death and not from any later date.

¶29

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid judgment, the present writ petition be disposed of and the impugned order dated 31.07.2020 be set-aside and be held that the petitioner would be entitled for monetary compensation right from the date of death of the husband.

¶30

10. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that a counter-affidavit has been filed in the present case opposing the prayer

¶31

¶32

of the petitioner, but he is not in a position to dispute that the petitioner would be entitled to monetary compensation right from the date of death of her husband in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court passed in L.P.A. No. 657/2018 dated 07.07.2020.

¶33

11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that initially this writ petition was filed seeking direction upon the respondents to pay the monetary compensation under clause 9.5.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement, but during the pendency of this case, the respondents have started making payment of monetary compensation, but vide impugned order dated 31.07.2020, the same was declined to be paid from the date of death of the husband of the petitioner. Consequently, order dated 31.07.2020 is under challenge through aforesaid I.A. No. 4298/2021.

¶34

12. In L.P.A. No. 657/2018 (Gangia Devi vs. M/s Bharat Coaking Coal Ltd. & Others) dated 07.07.2020, it has been held in paragraph 9, that in absence of any such stipulation made in the National Coal Wage Agreement-V as under clause 9.5.0, the writ petitioner of the same case was found entitled to get monetary compensation from the date of death of her husband. Para-9 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinbelow: -

¶35

“In absence of any such stipulation made in the National Coal Wage Agreement-V as undrew clause-9.5.0, we are of the view that the appellant-writ petitioner is entitled to get the monetary compensation from the date of death of her husband i.e., the deceased employee with effect from 11.04.1996 and as such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the effect holding therein the appellant-writ petitioner entitle for monetary compensation with effect from the date of application, is not sustainable in the eye of law.”

¶36

13. This Court finds that the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. Accordingly, the order dated 31.07.2020, denying monetary compensation to the petitioner from the date of death of her husband, is hereby set-aside and it is held that the petitioner would be entitled for monetary compensation right from the date of death of her husband.

¶37

¶38

14. The respondents are directed to disburse the monetary compensation to the petitioner calculating it from the date of death of her husband i.e., w.e.f. 26.08.2008 (death certificate dated 03.09.2008 has been annexed as annexure-1 to the writ petition.), within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with a representation with a copy of the aforesaid order passed in L.P.A. No. 657/2018 dated 07.07.2020.

¶39

15. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶40

16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶41

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶42

Mukul

Arti Devi v. Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited Represented through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arti Devi v. Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited Represented through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

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

Usha Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sudhir Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Water Resources Division

Dinesh Prasad Singh Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization

Birbal Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt Moti Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Pr Secretary Higher and Technical Education Deptt

Manjhlu Manjhi Alias Manjhlu Hembram Alias Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand