The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5628 of 2023 Most. Prabha Devi, wife of Late Damodar Kandhu, Resident of – Sayal ‘D’, P.O. – Siyal, P.S. – Bhurkunda, District – Ramgarh, Jharkhand. V E R S U S … Petitioner 1. Central Coal Fields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Darbhanga House, P.S. – Kotwali, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Director (Personnel), Central Coal Fields Limited, Darbhanga House, P.S. – Kotwali, District – Ranchi. 3. General Manager, (P & IR), Central Coal Fields Limited, Darbhanga House, P.S. – Kotwali, District – Ranchi. 4. The General Manager, Barka Sayal Area, Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. – Sayal, P.S. – Bhurkunda, District – Ramgarh – Jharkhand. 5. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Sayal ‘D’Colliery, At – Sayal, Bhurkunda, District – Ramgarh, Jharkhand. 6. The Welfare Officer, Sayal ‘D’Colliery, At – Sayal, Bhurkunda, District – Ramgarh, Jharkhand. … … Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK : For the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Kumar Pawan, Advocate Mr. Shashank Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate. 09/09.12.2024 2. Heard the parties. Petitioner has prayed for quashing/modification of order dated 18.08.2023 (Annexure-9), passed by the respondent no. 1 to the extent that the date of payment of monetary compensation may be modified as 11.12.1999 i.e. the date of death of the petitioner’s husband instead of date of application in view of law derived in L.P.A. No. 657 of 2018 that the monetary compensation is payable from the date of death of an employee. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to make payment of arrears of monetary compensation along with appropriate cost and interest from the date of death of husband of the petitioner. RC 1 3. According to the petitioner, her husband was working as a Timber Helper Cat-II worker in CCL at Sayal ‘D’ Colliery. Petitioner’s husband died in harness on 11.12.1999 leaving behind his wife (petitioner), three children and mother. The information regarding death of the employee was duly communicated to the office along with death certificate. Thereafter, petitioner’s son applied for appointment on compassionate ground but no final decision was not taken by the respondents for long. Thereafter, petitioner’s son filed W.P.(S) No. 3992 of 2004, which was
Decision
disposed of vide order dated 07.01.2009. However, claim of petitioner’s son for appointment on compassionate appointment was rejected vide reasoned order dated 27.01.2011. The petitioner’s son once again applied for appointment in light of new circular which also stood rejected vide letter dated 02.04.2013. Being aggrieved, petitioner again knocked door of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 820 of 2020 which was disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 1 to pass appropriate reasoned order in terms of Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA within a period of twelve weeks. The respondents preferred Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 06/2022 which was dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2022. Thereafter, in terms of order dated 05.02.2021, passed in W.P.(S) NO. 820 of 2020, respondents passed reasoned order dated 18.08.2023 wherein petitioner was allowed a monthly compensation of Rs.26,292.97 per month with effect from 01.07.2018 i.e. first day of month immediately falling next to the month of her application dated 27.06.2018. It is case of the petitioner that though she is entitled to receive monetary compensation in accordance with Para 9.5.0 (ii) of NCWA-V/VI from the date of death of her husband but the same has been denied to her and as such she has been constrained to knock door of this Court. 4. Mr. Harsh Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the petitioner had earlier applied for compassionate appointment. It was the respondents who sat over the matter for long and did not pass any order. Learned counsel argues that the order dated 18.08.2023 is erroneous and contrary to the law settled by this Court as the date of payment of monetary compensation shall be from 11.12.1999 i.e. the date of death of the petitioner’s husband instead of date of 2 RC application of the petitioner in view of settled law in L.P.A. No. 657 of 2018. Learned counsel further argues that the object behind providing monetary compensation to female dependent of deceased workmen is to ensure sustenance of the dependent and family of the workmen and such compensation is to be paid from the date of death of the workmen and not from the date of application. Learned counsel further argues that payment of monetary compensation from the date of application would defeat the purpose of such provision. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner is entitled to receive monetary compensation in accordance with Para 9.5.0 (ii) of NCWA-V/VI from the date of death of her husband and as such a direction may be passed for payment of compensation from the date of death of her husband. 5. Learned counsel submits that the issue regarding the date of payment of monetary compensation has already been decided by Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court Vide order dated 07.07.2020 passed in LPA No. 657 OF 2018 (Gangia Devi vs BCCL & Ors.), wherein the Hon’ble Court has opined that the monetary compensation shall be given to the legal heirs of the deceased employee from the date of death of the said employee and not from the date of making application for payment of monetary compensation. Learned counsel accordingly submits that a direction be given to the respondents to extend the monetary compensation to the petitioner within a stipulated period of time. 6. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents – CCL argues that the petitioner is not entitled for compensation in view of Para 9.5.0 (ii) of NCWA-V/VI in view of Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Estern Coal Fields Ltd. & Others Vs. Dukhni Bhuiya passed in Civil Appeal No. 6730/2023. Learned counsel further argues that since delay was on part of the petitioner, if she is not aware of her rights and was sleeping for a long period, the management cannot come for help. 7. The interpretation of the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court by learned counsel representing Central Coalfields Limited is not at all acceptable to this Court. It was the respondents – management who 3 RC was sleeping and did not come to dispose of representation of the petitioner rather they took 14 long years. Petitioner could know only after 14 long years that she is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Law is well settled and set at rest that the legal heirs are entitled for monetary compensation from the date of death and not from the date of representation. 8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner died in harness and after his death, one of his son applied for compassionate appointment but the same was denied by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted application for payment of monetary compensation but the respondents have informed the petitioner that in terms of guideline of the respondent-company for monetary compensation, the same will be made from the 1st of the following month in which the application has been submitted by the widow/ female dependent. The said stand of the respondents is not tenable in the eyes of law in view of ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 657 of 2018 (Gangia Devi vs BCCL & Ors). 9. The Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 657 of 2018 (Gangia Devi vs BCCL & Ors.) has already decided the issue regarding entitlement of monetary compensation from the date of death of an employee or from the date of making application by the dependent of the deceased employee. The relevant paragraphs of the said order is quoted herein below: “It is settled position of law that a thing is required to be done strictly in pursuance to the provisions of law, if any deviation, then ultimately the provision as contained under the statute will have no effect. Herein also NCWA agreement as under clause- 9.5.0 there is no stipulation made about the date of making payment of monetary compensation and as such, the respondents cannot be allowed to interpret the aforesaid conditions about making the payment of monetary compensation from the date of application and not from the date of death. It is the payment of monetary compensation is to be made on account of the death of the further evident that RC 4 therefore, the cause of action deceased employee, for disbursement of monetary compensation, according to our considered view, will be the death of employee and hence, the cause of action will be said to accrue from the date of death”. 9. In absence of any such stipulation made in the NCWA-V as under 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 the 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.” 10. Similar view has been taken by this Court in W.P.(S) NO. 303 of 2022 [Dibya Jani Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and others] and a direction was passed to pay monetary compensation after calculating it from the date of death of the employee. 11. Since the monetary compensation is to be paid on account of death of an employee and therefore, the cause of action would be on the date when the death of an employee occurs and in that view of the matter, the wife of the deceased employee, will be entitled to get the monetary compensation from the date of death and not from the date of application. 12. So far as the fact of the case is concerned, admittedly, the husband of the petitioner has died on 11.12.1999 and thereafter the application was filed by one of the son of deceased employee for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground but the same was denied by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has approached to the authority by filing an application for disbursement of monetary compensation but having not been disbursed, writ petition has been filed praying for payment of monetary compensation from the date of death of her husband. 13. This Court on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove and considering the fact that there is no stipulation made in the National Coal Wage Agreement that monetary compensation will be paid from the date of application, as has been discussed above, it can safely be construed that the monetary compensation would be payable from the date of cause of action i.e. from the date of death of the employee and the respondent RC 5 cannot make any addition in the National Coal Wage Agreement making the monetary compensation payable from the date of application. 14. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and legal propositions, the writ petition stands allowed. The respondent-CCL is directed to modify the monetary compensation after calculating it from the date of death i.e. with effect from 11.12.1999, which shall be paid in favour of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, with all consequential benefits. 15. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC 6