Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15251 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3515 of 2020 1 - Ramraj Giri S/o Late Manohar Giri Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Parsu Rampur Post, Tahsil And District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh. versus --- Petitioner 1 - Chairman Cum Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited Sipat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - General Area Manager (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited Area Baikunthpur District - Korea Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Area Manager Katkona, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sub - Area Baikunthpur District Korea Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Monika Giri D/o Late Manohar Giri Aged About 25 Years R/o 24 - Minus Katkona Colliery, Tahsil Baikunthpur District - Korea Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) AND WPS No. 1832 of 2021 1 - Monika Giri D/o Late Manohar Giri, Aged About 27 Years R/o Kathkona Colliery, P.O. Katkona, Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Champa Giri, D/o Late Manohar Giri, Aged About 48 Years R/o Kathkona Colliery, P.O. Katkona, Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. Versus ---Petitioner(s) 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Area Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Katkona Colliery, Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 4 - Ramraj Giri, S/o Late Manohar Giri, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Parsa, Rampur Post, Tehsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner in WPS No.3515 of 2020 and for respondent No.4 in WPS No. 1832 of 2021 For Petitioners in WPS No.1832 of 2021 & Respondent No.4 in WPS No.3515 of 2020
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, Advocate & Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3/SECL : Mr. Vinod K. Deshmukh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 01/04/2025 1. Learned counsel for petitioner (In WPS No.3515 of 2020) would submit that father of petitioner while working on the post of Chuteman with respondents No.1 to 3, died in harness on 23.02.2018. After death of petitioner’s father, his mother submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment to petitioner – Ramraj Giri under the clauses of National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA). Application submitted by widow of deceased employee on behalf of petitioner – Ramraj Giri was said to be considered by respondents No.1 to 3 and while considering the application and the eligibility of petitioner- Ramraj Giri, he was referred for his medical examination, before Medical Board at Churcha, Baikunthpur. The Medical Board found petitioner – Ramraj Giri unfit because of his hearing impairment. Accordingly, respondents No.1 to 3 rejected claim of petitioner. Aggrieved therewith petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. In the second writ petition bearing WPS No.1832 of 2021, petitioner 3 No.1 is daughter and petitioner No.2 is widow of deceased employee. After rejection of claim of petitioner – Ramraj Giri, petitioner- Monika Giri (daughter) (in WPS No.1832 of 2021) submitted an application for considering her candidature for grant of dependent employment. The said application is pending consideration before respondents No.1 to 3 on the ground that writ petition challenging rejection of claim of petitioner- Ramraj Giri (son of deceased employee) is pending consideration, before High Court. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner – Ramraj Giri would submit that after rejection of the claim of petitioner on the ground that he is suffering with hearing impairment, he got himself treated at Govt. District Hospital, Ambikapur on 07.12.2019 and the doctor (M.S.E.N.T.) has issued certificate that now petitioner has recovered from his illness and is fit to join duties. He submits that from the said documents, issued by the E.N.T. Specialist, it is apparent that petitioner is not suffering with any hearing impairment as of now, therefore, petitioner is entitled for referring his candidature to be re-examined by Appellate Medical Board. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 3 opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that considering physical condition of petitioner found on the date of his examination by the Medical Board at Churcha, Baikunthpur his claim for grant of dependent employment was rejected. Petitioner was having remedy of preferring appeal under Rule 29-J of the Mines Rules, 1955 (In short ‘the Rules, 1955’) for re-examination, which is not availed by petitioner 4 because he has not submitted any application for his re-examination by the Appellate Medical Board and in absence of any application, petitioner was not referred to the Appellate Medical Board. He also contended that for submitting application for medical re-examination, period of limitation is also prescribed as 30 days and on the date of filing of writ petition, 30 days’ period has already been lapsed. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 also vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that as soon as the claim of petitioner – Ramraj Giri is rejected by respondent authorities/employer on the ground of disability suffered by petitioner of hearing impairment, a right has accrued to petitioner -Monika Giri (daughter of deceased employee) to get dependent employment, and therefore, she has also submitted an application, which is pending consideration. As petitioner Ramraj Giri has not submitted any application for his re-examination, he is not entitled for any relief as claimed in this writ petition. It is also contended that from the documents filed along with writ petition as Annexure P-7, it is apparent that after declaring petitioner -Ramraj Giri unfit, he got himself operated and based upon which it is certified by E.N.T. Specialist of Government District Hospital, Ambikapur that he is fit to join his duties, hence, declaration of petitioner as medically unfit in the examination conducted on 16.07.2019 cannot be said to be erroneous. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed along with writ petition as also the reply submitted by respective respondents. 7. It is not in dispute that father of petitioner was employee of 5 respondents No.1 to 3. It is also not in dispute that under NCWA VI, one of the dependent is entitled for dependent employment in the event the employee dies in harness. It is also not disputed by respondents No.1 to 3 that petitioner - Ramraj Giri was otherwise entitled for dependent employment but for his hearing ailment, and therefore, his claim was considered and according to the rules, he was sent for his medical examination before providing him dependent employment. In the said medical examination, Medical Board, which conducted the medical examination of petitioner - Ramraj Giri, found him medically unfit due to hearing impairment. 8. The documents Annexure P-7 filed by petitioner issued by the Government District Hospital, Ambikapur mentions that after 16.07.2019, when petitioner was declared medically unfit for dependent employment, he underwent surgery and thereafter, the doctor of Government District Hospital, Ambikapur has issued a certificate in favour of petitioner that he is cured in respect of defect of hearing and that he is now fit to join his duty. 9. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 has taken a ground that petitioner was having a remedy of appeal under Rule 29-J of the Rules, 1955 for medical re-examination. Further the constitution of Medical Board is also provided under Rule 29-K of the Rules, 1955. 10. Rule 29 (J) and Rule 29-K of the Rules, 1955 are relevant, which are extracted below for ready reference :- “29-J. Appeal for re-examination.-(1) Where as a result of an initial medical examination under clause (a), or of a periodical 6 medical examination under clause (b) of Rule 29-B, a person has been declared unfit for employment in mines or in a particular category of mine or in any specified operations in mine, he may, within thirty days of the receipt by him of a copy of the Certificate referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 29-F, file an appeal with the manager of the mine against the declaration aforesaid, and request for a medical re-examination by an Appellate Medical Board constituted under Rule 29-Κ. (2) (a) The manager shall arrange to have the appellant medically re-examined by the Appellate Medical Board within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal and shall give to the Appellant fifteen days' prior notice of the medical re- examination by the Appellate Medical Board in Form Q. (b) A person who, for any reasonable cause, fails to submit himself for a medical re-examination in accordance with the notice given to him under clause (a), shall be given another notice in Form R in similar manner. (c) A person who has, without reasonable cause, fails to submit himself for a medical re-examination in accordance with a notice given to him under clause (b), shall cease to be in employment at the mine or in a particular category of mines or in any specified operations in mine, as the case may be, after the expiry of thirty days from the last date notified for his medical re-examination. (3) In respect of every medical re-examination by the Appellate Medical Board, the appellant shall pay such fees and the medical examination shall be conducted in such manner as may be determined by the Appellate Medical Board. In case the Appellate Medical Board finds him fit for employment in mines, the fees shall be re-imbursed in full to the appellant by the owner of the mine where he is employed. 7 29-K. Constitution of Appellate Medical Board. For the purpose of medical re-examination on appeal the Appellate Medical Board shall consist of the following officers namely:- (a) One duly qualified Medical Officer in the employment of the Directorate General of Mines Safety who shall also act as the Convenor of the Board. (b) One Medical Officer duly qualified in allopathic system of medicine to be nominated by the Chief Inspector in consultation with the Welfare Organisations set up by the Central Government for the persons employed in the mine. (c) One Medical Officer duly qualified in allopathic system of medicine employed in the State or Central Government or a Government Undertaking and not below the rank of Assistant Civil Surgeon: Provided that if a Medical Officer under clause (b) or clause (c) is not available, the Appellate Medical Board shall be constituted with two persons only.” 11. As per submission of learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, the Rules, 1955 is to be applied for employment in the mines. Rule 29-M provides that unfit person not to be employed. Rule 29-M is extracted below for ready reference :- “29-M. Unfit persons not to be employed.-(1) Where, as a result of an initial medical examination made under clause (a), or of a periodical medical examination under clause (b) of Rule 29-B a person has been declared unfit for employment in mines or in a particular category of mines or in any specified operations in mines, he shall not be employed or continue to be employed in mines or in the category of mine or on the operations specified after the expiry of thirty days from the date of his medical examination unless he has filed an appeal under sub-rule (1) of Rule 29-J against the declaration. 8 (2) Where the person concerned has filed an appeal under sub- rule (1) of Rule 29-J, but has been declared by the Appellate Medical Board, after a medical re-examination, to be unfit for employment in mines or in a particular category of mines or on any specified operations in mines, he shall not be employed or continue to be employed in mine or in the category of mines or on the operations specified, after the expiry of thirty days from the date of his medical re-examination by the Appellate Medical Board: Provided that, if the Medical Officer carrying out the initial medical examination under clause (a), or the periodical examination under clause (b) of Rule 29-B, or the Appellate Medical Board carrying out the medical re-examination of persons already in employment is of the opinion that the disability of the person examined is of such a nature and degree that it will not seriously affect or interfere with the normal discharge of his duties, it may recommend his continuation in employ-ment in the mine for a period not exceeding six months during which such person may get his disability cured or controlled and submit himself for another medical examination and be declared fit. 12. In view of the declaration of petitioner - Ramraj Giri to be unfit as suffering from hearing impairment on the date of medical examination i.e. 16.07.2019, therefore, the decision taken by respondents No.1 to 3 vide Annexure P-6, informing the mother of petitioner that petitioner – Ramraj Giri could not be granted dependent employment due to medical unfitness (hearing impairment), cannot be said to be erroneous. 13. However, the medical impairment with which petitioner – Ramraj Giri is suffering is not permanent in nature. Petitioner after receiving the letter on 16.07.2019 has taken treatment of his ailment with which he was 9 suffering and as per the documents Annexure P-7, he underwent surgery in Government District Hospital, Ambikapur and certificate in this regard is issued by E.N.T. Specialist that hearing impairment with which petitioner was suffering on the date of examination has been cured and he is now fit to join his duties. 14. Considering the facts of the case in particular that petitioner – Ramraj Giri is now not suffering with permanent disability of hearing impairment, Rule 29-J of the Rules, 1955 provides for medical re- examination and further considering that petitioner belonged to the low strata of society he is not highly qualified person and is fighting for his right of dependent employment under NCWA, therefore, I find it appropriate to dispose of WPS No.3515 of 2020 granting opportunity to petitioner to submit representation/appeal before respondents No.1 to 3 requesting for his medical re-examination by Appellate Medical Board constituted under Rule 29-K of the Rules, 1955 at the earliest. 15. Accordingly, WPS No.3515 of 2020 is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit a representation/appeal before the respondents. In the event petitioner submits such application/representation/appeal, respondents No.3 shall consider the same on merits treating it to be filed within limitation period of 30 days as provided under the Rules, 1955 and refer the claim of petitioner for his medical re-examination by Appellate Medical Board in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, 1955 within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of appeal/representation. After receipt of report of medical re- examination of petitioner- Ramraj Giri, respondents No.1 to 3 shall 10 consider the claim of petitioner for dependent employment as per NCWA in accordance with the law. 16. In the light of the direction issued in WPS No.3515 of 2020, WPS
Decision
No.1832 of 2021 is also disposed of. However, petitioner – Monika Giri in WPS No.1832 of 2021 will be at liberty to press her claim for her dependent employment in case, petitioner – Ramraj Giri in WPS No.3515 of 2020 is found unfit for his dependent employment in his medical re-examination to be conducted by the Appellate Medical Board as directed above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram