The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.261 of 2024 Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfield Limited, Sambalpur & another …. Petitioners Badal Bhukta & others Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, Senior Advocate along with Mr. R. Sharma, Advocate -Versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA Mr. N.C. Das, Advocate For O.P. No.1 CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 30.01.2025 Order No. 07. 1. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners assisted by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Das, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 besides Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant review petition is filed in terms of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. seeking review of the Court’s order dated 23rd August, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.20369 of 2024 on the grounds stated therein. 3. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the Court’s order in W.P.(C) No.20369 of 2024 is required to be reviewed to the extent indicated as there is no such provision to provide future maintenance to opposite party No.1 in absence of any policy in place with reference to the order of the Apex Court in SLPC No.46576 of 2023, wherein, the decision of this Court in W.A. No.1339 of 2023 though has not been interfered with but was followed with an observation that the question of law is left open for a decision in appropriate proceeding. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate further submits Page 1 of 5 that since there has been payment of ex-gratia amount to the family of the deceased with contractual employment in favour of his daughter and to provide regular employment to opposite party No.1, a decision in that regard, having been taken, in the meantime, the direction to pay and bear the future maintenance of the family is liable to be reviewed. It is further submitted that the case of opposite party No.1 is entirely based on agreement dated 20th June, 2019 i.e. Annexure-3 to the writ petition and such the officers, who were parties to the same, did not have the competence and furthermore, due to want of any such provision for future maintenance, the same cannot be given effect to. Referring to the additional affidavit as at Flag-D, it is further submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate that it has been specifically mentioned therein regarding absence of any such provision in the policy vis-(cid:224)-vis future maintenance and that apart, in order to meet the day-to-day needs of the deceased family, a job to the daughter of the deceased was instantly provided and recently, a regular employment is to be offered to opposite party No.1 as a land oustee and therefore, in view of such decision and employments, the deceased family is not entitled to any such amount towards future maintenance. With such submission, Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate submits that the Court’s order dated 23rd August, 2024 in W.P.(C) No.20369 of 2024 deserves to be modified. 4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for opposite party No.1, on the contrary, submits that the case of opposite party No.1 is similar to the one decided in W.P.(C) No.14456 of 2021 and in so far as the dues receivable are concerned, the same was upheld though with such an observation towards the end. It is submitted by Mr. Das, learned counsel that since the claim of opposite party No.1 is rested on the agreement i.e. Annexure-3, the petitioners cannot be permitted to resile therefrom and deny such lawful entitlement to opposite party No.1, the fact, which was duly considered by this Page 2 of 5 Court, while disposing of W.P.(C) No.14456 of 2021 and finally, confirmed in W.A. No. 1339 of 2023. It is submitted that the plea of coercion with respect to the officers party to the agreement i.e. Annexure-3 cannot be the basis to deny opposite party No.1, the legitimate entitlement, hence, therefore, the order of this Court in W.P.(C) No.20369 of 2024 needs no interference. 5. In course of hearing, Mr. Das, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 produced the copies of orders in W.P.(C) No.14456 of 2021 and in W.A. No.1339 of 2023 to claim that the case of opposite party No.1 cannot be singled out and he therefore, should be equally granted the sum i.e. Rs.13,09, 920/- towards future maintenance. It is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate that the order in W.P.(C) No.20369 of 2024 is required to be modified since the agreement has no legal sanction in absence of any policy. The submission is that the petitioners have borrowed the policy of the Coal India and the same does not provide any such provision towards future maintenance. It is contended that the agreement i.e. Annexure-3 since has been obtained under the duress, no such relief can either be allowed in favour of opposite party No.1 in view of Sections 14 and 15 of the Indian Contract Act. The essence of argument of Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner is that the agreement i.e. Annexure-3 is invalid, since, it has been a product of coercion. In any case, the contention is that the so-called agreement in favour of opposite party No.1 cannot be taken into account and be the basis for any such payment to opposite party No.1 in absence of any provision in the policy. 6. Recorded the submission of Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State. 7. This Court by order dated 23rd August, 2024, while considering the plea of the petitioner, disposed of W.P.(C) No.20369 of 2024 at the admission stage itself with a direction to Page 3 of 5 the petitioner to honour Annexure-3 and release and disburse the balance amount entitled and to be received by opposite party No.1 upon proper verification. Looking at the order of the Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 46576 of 2023 as at Annexure-C/2, it is to be held that the decision on any such future maintenance though has been left untouched but it would be confined to the case only and cannot be applied generally in view of the observation contained therein. As far as the ex-gratia payment is concerned, the same has been allowed in favour of opposite party No.1 besides payment of a sum of Rs.6,90,080/- under the Employees Compensation Act besides the contractual engagement of the deceased daughter and the regular employment of opposite party No.1 to follow suit. Referring to the additional affidavit, it is claimed that an amount of Rs.5 lac has been paid to the family of the deceased as ex-gratia. 8. Considering the same and in absence of any provision in the policy of the petitioners, the Court is of the view that since the Apex Court while disposing of SLP (C) No. 46576 of 2023 has left the question for determination, an objection as is received by the petitioners at present, the Court is of the view that the order dated 23rd August, 2024 to the extent as aforesaid is required to be modified. The Court reaches at such a conclusion since because the petitioners do not have the policy to offer future maintenance to the family of a deceased employee and as far as the agreement i.e. Annexure-3 is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that the officials party to the same have had the competence to consent to the entitlement of opposite party No.1 with respect to the future maintenance of the family, Though, it has been alleged that the agreement was obtained under duress and on account of coercion administered of the officials of the petitioners, nevertheless, the conclusion of the Court is that the same cannot be given effect to in absence of any such legal sanction to it by a provision in the policy. In other words, the Court is of the ultimate view that the order Page 4 of 5 dated 23rd August, 2024 in W.P.(C) No.20369 of 2024 deserves to be modified. 9. Hence, it is ordered. 10. In the result, the review petition stands allowed with the order dated 23rd August, 2024 in W.P.(C) No.20369 of 2024 dated 23rd August, 2024 being modified to the extent discussed herein above. 11. In the circumstance, however, there is no order as to costs. 12. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 31-Jan-2025 18:24:15 Page 5 of 5