Subhawati and another v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others) whereby the writ petition filed b
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.09.16 17:32:00 +0530 2025:CGHC:47383-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 685 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Dist. Bi- laspur (C.G.) 2 - Director (Personnel), South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Seepat Road Bi- laspur (C.G.) 3 - Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, West Jhagrakhand Colliery, Hasdeo Area, Teh.- Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Subhawati W/o Babulal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bishun- pura, P.O. Parsaon, Ps Lalganj, Distt. Basti U.P. 2 - Guddu S/o Babulal, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Bishunpura, Po Parsaon, Ps Lalganj, Distt. Basti (Up) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Chief Justice , Judge Judgment on Board Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Per 16.09.2025 1
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2 2 By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following relief(s):- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly set-aside the order dated 24.10.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No.6182/2014 and order dated 29.07.2025 passed in REVP No.182/2025, in the interest of justice.” 3 The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.6182/2014 (Subhawati and another v. South
Decision
Eastern Coalfields Limited and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge has been disposed of. Against which, the appellants herein have filed the review petition being REVP No.182/2025, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.07.2025. 4 Brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge, in nutshell, are that respondent No.1’s husband and respondent No.2’s father, Babulal, was appointed as a Breakman at West Jhagrakhand Colliery, Hasdeo Area on 13.08.1982 and served there until he went missing. During his service, he was diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia, which progressively worsened. Despite being under treatment, the respondent company failed to provide proper medical care. Consequently, Babulal returned to 3 his hometown in Uttar Pradesh and never came back. The respondents made efforts to trace him but were unsuccessful. A missing report was lodged with the police, and the respondent management was informed, with notices even published in newspapers. Despite this, the respondent authorities issued a charge sheet against Babulal, which respondent No.1 replied to, explaining that her husband was suffering from a mental disorder and requested that no departmental action be taken until his recovery. No further information was provided by the respondents. As Babulal was the sole earning member, the respondents inquired about dependent employment but learned it was only available after the employee’s death. They filed Civil Suit No.9A/2011 seeking a declaration of Babulal’s death, which was decreed in their favor on 31.01.2012. Subsequently, respondent No.1 applied to the respondents on 31.07.2012 for clearance of Babulal’s dues, including gratuity, pension, and life cover, and for dependent employment benefits under the NCWA social security scheme. However, the respondent authorities did not provide the dependent employment to the respondents. 5 Feeling aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the writ petitioners therein/respondents herein have filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.6182/2014, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 24.10.2024. 4 6 Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 24.10.2024 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.6182/2014, the appellants herein have preferred review petition being REVP No.182/2025, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.07.2025. 7 Challenging the aforesaid orders dated 24.10.2024 and 29.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition as well as review petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellants herein/respondents therein. 8 Learned counsel for the appellants/respondents therein submits that the impugned orders dated 24.10.2024 and 29.07.2025 are bad in law, erroneous, and perverse. It is further submitted that the very purpose of granting dependent employment at such a belated stage, i.e., after 23 years from the date the employee went missing and 12 years from the date of the decree of civil death, has come to an end, as the family has already survived without any such benefit for a prolonged period. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge, in Para 12 of the impugned order, has erroneously held that on the date of termination, i.e., 23.08.2005, the deceased employee would be deemed to be dead and, therefore, the writ petitioners would be entitled to dependent employment. The learned Single Judge failed to consider that the decree of civil death was rendered only on 31.01.2012, and before such declaration, the death of the 5 employee could not be presumed, notwithstanding the fact that he had not been seen for the preceding seven years. A decree of a civil court cannot operate retrospectively to create entitlement. It is further submitted that, in terms of the provisions of the National Coal Wage Agreement, dependent employment is provided only in cases where an employee dies while in service and not in cases of civil death or post-termination. In the present case, the deceased employee was admittedly terminated in the year 2005 and was no longer in service. In view of the above, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 9 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners submitted that the impugned orders dated 24.10.2024 and 29.07.2025 are legally valid and do not warrant any interference. It is submitted that the provisions for dependent employment under the National Coal Wage Agreement are intended to provide relief only to the family of an employee who dies while in service. In the present case, the deceased employee was terminated from service in the year 2005 and was therefore not entitled to dependent employment benefits. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge’s reliance on the notion that the employee could be deemed dead on the date of termination is misconceived. The civil court’s decree of civil death was passed only on 31.01.2012, and prior to such declaration, the employee’s death could not be presumed. Entitlements under service rules or social security provisions cannot be granted 6 retrospectively on the basis of civil death alone. As such, the writ appeal be dismissed. 10 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have also perused the record of the case, including the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.6182/2014 as well as the order dated 29.07.2025 passed in REVP No.182/2025. 11 After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record in Writ Petition (S) No.6182/2014, the learned Single Judge while relying the decisions in MP State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Aruna Pyasi, (2003) 03 MP CK 0102 as also in Deepak Kumar Jharbade v. The Western Coal Field Ltd.; Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Nitu Devi, AIR OnLine 2022 Cal 1339; and the order dated 14.07.2023 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 13083/2023 in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Nitu Devi and others has passed the impugned order in in following terms:- “12. From the judgment and decree dated 31.1.2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 9A/2011 it is clear that the learned trial Court found that since 27.11.2003 to 27.11.2010 nobody saw Babulal alive and hence declared civil death of Babulal. According to the respondents 7 they issued charge sheet on 15.12.2003 against Babulal and terminated him after enquiry on 23.8.2005. It is not in dispute that he was absent from his duties since 28.12.2002 and did not turn up, therefore, his family members filed a civil suit in the year 2011 for declaration of his civil death which was decreed in favour of the petitioners. So, in this background, termination of services of Late Babulal would be rendered inconsequential. Even otherwise, action against a dead person is a nullity. As such, the respondent authorities were not justified in denying the claim of the petitioners on the ground that services of Babulal were terminated by a competent authority. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to submit a fresh representation with all the relevant documents before the concerned authority who in turn shall consider and decide the same treating it to be within limitation, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such 8 representation in accordance with law and if petitioner No.2 is found eligible, then he be given compassionate appointment as per rules.” 12 Thereafter, the appellants herein have filed review petition being REVP No.182/2025, which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.07.2025. 13 In view of the foregoing discussion and after carefully considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, as well as the materials on record, we find no merit in the present writ appeal. The impugned orders dated 24.10.2024 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.6182/2014 and 29.07.2025 passed in REVP No.182/2025 by the learned Single Judge are legally sound, based on relevant facts and applicable law, and do not warrant interference. 14 It is clear from the record that the deceased employee, Babulal, was terminated from service on 23.08.2005 and was no longer in employment at the relevant time. While the civil court subsequently declared his civil death on 31.01.2012, such a declaration cannot operate retrospectively to create any entitlement to dependent employment, which under the provisions of the National Coal Wage Agreement is available only to the family of an employee who dies while in service. The learned Single Judge rightly observed that action taken against a deceased person is null and, therefore, the family cannot derive 9 any benefit on the basis of termination prior to such declaration. 15 Moreover, the writ petitioners/respondents have already been directed to submit a fresh representation with all relevant documents to the concerned authority, who shall consider and decide the matter in accordance with law within three months. This ensures that the statutory and contractual provisions are duly complied with, without granting any impermissible retrospective benefit. 16 Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu