Sunita Devi Vs Central Coal Fields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (S) No. 1747 of 2023

Sunita Devi, aged about 30 years, Wife of Late Shyam Sonar, Resident of 341, Jarangdih 16 no. Bermo Jarangdih, Jarangdih Colliery, P.O. & P.S. Jarangdih, District Bokaro, Jharkhand … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Central Coal Fields Limited through its Chairman -cum- Managing Director, At- Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District: Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶6

Director (Personnel), Central Coal Fields Limited, At- Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District: Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶7

General Manager, (P & I R), Central Coalfields Limited, At- Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District: Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶8

The General Manager, Central Coal Fields Limited, Dhori Area, At & P.O.Dhori, P.S.- Bermo, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand.

¶9

The Project Officer, AMLO Project, Central Coal Fields Limited, At & P.O.Dhori, P.S.- Bermo, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand … … Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶12

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate ---

¶13

06/5^th March 2024

¶14

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶15

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

¶16

“i. For quashing of the Letter no.-2684 dated 19.02.2018 (Annexure-5) issued by Assistant Manager (Personnel) Amlo Project whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for grant of employment, in CCL in lieu of Death of her husband, which was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has submitted the claim for employment after lapse of limitation period.

¶17

ii. For direction upon the respondents to consider and grant employment to the petitioner in the light of provisions contained under para 9.5.0. of the National Coal Wages Agreement (hereinafter referred as N.C.W.A. for sake of convenience) as the petitioner is a female dependent upon the deceased employee and granting employment in respondent company is not by virtue of policy decision but rather as per tripartite agreement i.e. NCWA which is statutory in nature by virtue of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and further life span of the workers working in colliery is very law and as such on death or unfitness, jobless member of deceased or medical unfit worker are provided compassionate appointment. AND / OR

¶18

To pass such other order / orders as your lordship may deem fit and proper for doing justice, in fact of present case.”

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the husband of the

¶20

petitioner had expired on 02.02.2016 while he was in service of the

¶21

2

¶22

respondents and the information regarding death was given to the employer vide representation dated 09.02.2016 and pursuant thereto, the name of the husband of the petitioner was struck off from the roll. He submits that since the intimation regarding death was given within time, it cannot be said that the application for grant of compassionate appointment was barred by limitation. He submits that the impugned order has been passed on the sole ground that the application was filed beyond the period prescribed i.e. one and a half years and that the application for compassionate appointment was filed only on 16.09.2017. The learned counsel submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order is perverse and calls for interference.

¶23

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer of the writ petitioner and has submitted that the intimation about death of the husband of the petitioner is not an application for compassionate appointment. He has further submitted that in the impugned order a number of communications have been mentioned asking the petitioner to apply for compassionate appointment. Those communications have not been disputed in the writ petition but in spite of such communications, the petitioner did not take any step within the stipulated time and consequently the impugned order has been passed which does not call for any interference.

¶24

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the averments made in the writ petition, it is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner died on 02.02.2016 while he was in service of the respondents and the petitioner had served a letter dated 09.02.2016 as contained in Annexure-3. Annexure-3 is only an intimation about the death of the husband of the petitioner and pursuant to such intimation, the name of the husband of the petitioner was also struck-off from the rolls of the respondents vide order dated 09.03.2016 (annexure-4) .

¶25

6. It has been mentioned in the impugned order dated 19.02.2018 that the petitioner was informed time and again including vide letter No. 4040 dated 31.03.2016; letter No. 959 dated 25.07.2016; letter No. 1418 dated 09.09.2016; letter No. 2837 dated 24.01.2017 and letter No. 130 dated 16.04.2017 asking the petitioner to apply for post death benefits, but the petitioner did not apply within the prescribed time and applied only on 16.09.2017 which was rejected as time barred. The communications which have been mentioned in Annexure5 have neither been annexed by the writ petitioner in the writ petition nor it is

¶26

3

¶27

the case of the writ petitioner that such communications were never served upon the petitioner.

¶28

7. This Court finds that the grant of compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and the same is governed strictly in terms of the scheme for compassionate appointment. In such circumstances, this Court finds that no perversity or illegality in the impugned order as the application for compassionate appointment was filed beyond the prescribed time. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. 8. However, since the petitioner claims to be the wife of the deceased employee, she would be entitled for monetary compensation as per the applicable norms of the respondents. 9. At this, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that if the petitioner applies for monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment, appropriate order will be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of such application. 10. Accordingly, entitlement of monetary compensation is certainly required to be considered by the respondents for which the petitioner shall approach the respondent No. 4 by filing a representation along with a copy of the writ records and a copy of this order within a period of 15 days from today. 11. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent No. 4 shall verify the records and pass appropriate reasoned order with regards to the claim of monetary compensation from the date of death of the deceased employee within a period of one month from the date of filing the representation. If the petitioner is found entitled for any amount, appropriate steps be taken by the respondent No. 4, so that the amount is remitted to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of the reasoned order.

¶29

12. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations and directions with regards to claim of monetary compensation. 13. Pending I.A, if any, is closed.

¶30

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶31

Mukul

Sunita Devi v. Central Coal Fields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Devi v. Central Coal Fields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Ejazul Haque Vs the State of Jharkhand

Awadhesh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Principal Secretary Higher Technical Education and Skill Development

Govind Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagannath Bhagat Vs the Chairman Coal India Ltd. Cil

Indradeo Pandit Vs State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Deptt of Higher and Technical Education

Sushila Devi Vs Central Coal Fields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director