Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:1865 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2824 of 2020 Ram Miri (Died) Through Legal Heir : Chandra Mohan Mirre, S/o Late Ram Miri, Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 58, Gewra Basti, Korba, District - Korba. Versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Through Chief Managing Director) SECL Head-Quarters, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Office Of The General Manager/SAM South Eastern Coalfields Limited Surakachhar- Balgi Sub Area, Korba Area, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 10 /01/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 To direct Respondents to grant employment to the dependent of Petitioner in view of his permanent disability, in accordance with the applicable policy/law; and 10.2 To direct Respondents to decide upon the representations dated 17.10.2019, 13.01.2020 and 16.05.2020 preferred by petitioner in a time bound manner, in accordance with applicable policy/law; 10.3 To pass any other order in favour of Petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.22 16:08:40 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petitioner was filed initially by the employee of the Respondent Ram Miri who died during the pendency of the writ petition and thereafter, name of the present writ petitioner was substituted pursuant to the order dated 25.11.2024. 3. The original writ petitioner has filed this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was an employee of the respondents and was holding the post of Trammer and was deputed at Surakachhar Main Mine, Korba. During his employment, he suffered severe medical ailment. He under gone operation of the eyes, suffered paralysis and suffered loss of sight also. When he became in a vegetative state and not able to perform the work and became bedridden, he submitted an application for declaring him to be medically unfit on 17.10.2019. When the application submitted by the petitioner for his declaration of medically unfit was not considered and no heed was given by the respondents, he again, submitted applications on 13.01.2020, 14.01.2020 and further, sent the application through registered post on 16.05.2020. The copies of the applications are filed
Decision
along with the writ petition. 4. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was referred to Shri Ganesh Vinayak Eye Hospital, Raipur vide order dated 19.08.2018 (Annexure P/2) and further, he was referred to the K.I.M.S. Super Specialty Hospital, Bilaspur and Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur for treatment of his medical ailment. He submits that the nature of disease with which the petitioner was suffering is specifically mentioned in the medical documents enclosed along with the writ petition. Original petitioner was not referred to the Medical Board/Apex Medical Board for assessing his ability/disability to perform his duties which made him to file this writ petition. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that 3 the original petitioner thereafter died on 26.09.2024 during pendency of this writ petition and therefore, the respondents be directed to consider the claim of the present petitioner herein for dependent employment. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents vehemently opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and would submit that looking to the medical ailments with which the original petitioner was suffering, he was provided hospitable conditions, during his service tenure, he was provided full medical facilities through different specialists/hospital as per service rules. According to the National Coal Wage Agreement X vide implementation Instruction No. 7, Clause No. 6.5.2., the employee suffering with heart disease, T.B. Cancer, Leprosy, Paralysis, Renal Disease, HIV and Brain Disease/disorder are entitled for Special Leave during which period, they are to be paid wages “Basic Pay + VDA + SDA” till they are declared fit by the Company Medical Board. Due to heart disease, petitioner became sick and during that period, he was provided Special Leave and was being paid wages as per the Instruction No. 7 under the National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter for brevity referred to as N.C.W.A.) - X. The application of the petitioner was examined and he was advised to appear before the Apex Medical Board of the company from 20-21.09.2019. He was examined by the Apex Medical Board and recommended for alternate surface duty on 28- 29.01.2020. 6. He further contended that the original petitioner was employed in the respondent company with effect from 17.08.1989 as Piece Rated Loader and as per the company’s rule, petitioner is superannuating from service of the company after attaining the age of 60 years from 31.07.2020 as his date of birth is recorded in all the service records as 12.07.1960. He contended that the petitioner moved an application before the authorities 4 on 24.01.2020 seeking benefit of Clause 9.4.0 under the N.C.W.A. - VI for availing of dependent employment to one of his family member. The representations submitted by the petitioner were time barred as he has moved an application for the first time on 17.10.2019 upon attaining the age of 59 years. According to Clause 9.4.0 (II), employment to one of the dependent of the worker who is permanently disabled in his place can be considered up to the age of 58 years of an employee. As the representation was made much beyond the completion of 58 years of age and therefore, the application submitted by the petitioner for the first time on 17.10.2019 was time barred. It is the contention of the counsel for the respondents that the copy of the N.C.W.A. - VI is filed along with the covering memo and one copy of the N.C.W.A. - VI is also placed for kind perusal of this Court, during the course of arguments. The employees working with the respondents company will be entitled for the benefit under the Clause of the N.C.W.A. only when they fulfill the relevant parameters as fixed therein. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. The claim of the petitioner in this writ petition is that even after submission of the application by the original petitioner before the respondents, he was not referred before the Medical Board/Apex Medical Board for the purpose of assessment of his inability to perform duty on which he was posted and to consider the prayer for declaring him medically unfit. Copy of the application which is submitted by the petitioner is filed herewith as Annexure P/1. The first application submitted by the petitioner is dated 17.10.2019 and subsequently, the other applications were also filed and lastly, the application was submitted by the petitioner on 16.05.2020. 5 9. Before proceeding further, I find it appropriate to glance the relevant clauses under the Memorandum of Agreement of N.C.W.A. - VI. It is a by- party agreement of 2000 and as per the document placed before this Court, in the meeting held on 14.12.2000 along with the Minister of Finance, Minister of Labour, Minister of Power and Minister of State for Coal (Independent Charge), officials of the respondents, members of the unions were also present. Chapter 9 of the N.C.W.A. - VI deals with social security under Clause 9.4.0 which provides for “employment to one dependent of a worker who is permanently disabled”. Clause 9.4.0 is extracted below for ready reference:- “9.4.0 Employment to one dependant of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place (i) The disablement of the worker concerned should arise from injury or disease, be of a permanent nature resulting into loss of employment and it should be so certified by the Coal Company concerned. (ii) In case of disablement arising out of general physical debility so certified by the Coal Company, the employee concerned will be eligible for the benefit under this clause if he/she is upto the age of 58 years. The term 'general physical debility' would mean deficiency of a workman due to any disease or other health reason leading to his/her disablement to perform his/her duties regularly and/or efficiently. (iii) The dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be. unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter- in-law or son-in-law residing with the employee and almost wholly dependent on the earning of the employee may be considered. In so far as female dependants are concerned, their employment would be governed by the provisions of clause 9.5.0. (iv) The dependants to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as given in Clause 9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment. 10. Perusal of the aforementioned extracted clause under N.C.W.A. - VI would show that under sub-clause II of the Clause 9.4.0., age of an 6 employee seeking dependent employment under this clause is specifically prescribed as 58 years. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents have categorically pleaded that on the date of submission of the first application i.e. 17.10.2019 for declaring the employee to be unfit, he attained the age of 59 years. This pleading in reply to the writ petition is not controverted by way of filing an additional affidavit or rejoinder by the petitioner. The reply was filed on 17.11.2020. In reply, the date of superannuation/retirement of the petitioner is also specifically pleaded as 31.07.2020. Pursuant to the order dated 23.08.2022 passed in the writ petition, the respondents have also filed an affidavit on 13.09.2022. In the said affidavit, the respondents have pleaded that the petitioner was superannuating from the service of the company after attaining the age of 60 years with effect from 31.07.2020 and the date of birth of the employee was recorded as 12.07.1960. This affidavit is also not controverted by filing additional pleadings or the affidavit by the petitioner. 11. Along with the affidavit, the respondents have also enclosed copies of the order/letter under the subject ‘grant of Special Leave as per implementation Instruction No. 17 on National Wage Agreement – X, name of the petitioner finds place at Serial No. 7 and Special Leave was granted with effect from 14.05.2019. In order/letter dated 15.11.2019, the original petitioner was granted Special Leave with effect from 21.09.2019 for three months and vide order dated 14-15.11.2019. As per office order dated 31.03.2020, petitioner was again granted the Special Leave from 21.03.2020 to 20.04.2020 with effect from 06.02.2020 for three months. Annexure R/3 is filed along with the affidavit which is a letter written by the General Manager (Personnel) to the General Manager, S.E.C.L. Baikunthpur, Hasdeo, Chirmiri, Korba dated 28.01.2020 under the subject ‘Apex Medical Board Reports for change of job/surface area job held on 19.09.2019, 20.09.2019 and 21.09.2019 at IVHC S.EC.L. Bilaspur. 7 12.Perusal of the letter dated 28.01.2020 would show that under the list of the employees of Korba area who were examined by the Medical Board on 21.09.2019, name of the original petitioner also finds place at Serial No. 13 and he was recommended for alternate surface job. Further, another document is also enclosed along with the affidavit of Indira Vihar Health Centre, S.E.C.L., Bilaspur in Form ‘O’ wherein, considering the health condition, the original petitioner was advised for alternate surface job. 13. From the aforementioned facts of the case and the documents enclosed along with the affidavit dated 12.09.2022, it is apparent that the petitioner was examined by the Apex Medical Board on 21.09.2019. hence, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the original petitioner/employee of the respondent was not examined by the Medical Board, pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is repelled. 14. As discussed above, under Clause 9.4.0, the claim for dependent employment can be considered only when the employee applies for dependent employment on the ground of unfit for service, before attaining the age of 58 years. For grant of benefit under clause 9.4.0. of the N.C.W.A. - VI, there is rider in Clause 9.4.0. (II) for granting benefit of dependent employment to one of the dependent of the worker, that the employee has not completed the age of 58 years is indisputable. The pleading made in the reply and submission before this Court that on the date of filing of the first application i.e. on 17.10.2019, the original petitioner/employee was of 59 years of age is not disputed by the petitioner. Hence, in the aforementioned facts of the case and specific Clause 9.4.0 of the N.C.W.A. - X, the original petitioner/employee was not entitled for the benefit under Clause 9.4.0 for dependent employment to 8 one of the dependent family member on the ground of permanent disability. 15. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition being sans merit, it is liable to be and is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey