EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS v. MANGALI @ MANGALA BOURI

thereby these intra court appeals have been preferred by both the parties . Submissions

#6. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the ECL, would submit that the appointment of Tulsi Bouri was a compassionate appointment in place of her deceased husband after considering all the documents as well as after compliance with all formalities. Tulsi Bouri during her life time on September 8, 2000, applied for VRS and GHS scheme, which was pending for consideration. Meantime the claimant, claiming to be the sole widowed daughter of the deceased Tulsi Bouri informed the present appellant on November 27, 2000 about the demise of her mother on November 26, 2000. It is submitted that the husband of the claimant passed away only on October 10, 2000 that is only after few days after death of her mother and that ipso facto cannot be a ground to claim for a compassionate appointment unless she proves that she was the sole dependent legal heir of the deceased employee and is entitled for the employment. On December 14, 2000, the respondent made the application before the appellant No.1 seeking employment on compassionate ground and on March 14, 2001 she filed her biodata along with other documents.

#7. It is also submitted that she filed an indemnity bond executed by one Shashti Dhibar indemnifying the relationship between the her and said deceased employee as mother and daughter. The appellant found serious discrepancies in the said indemnity bond and despite repeated request made by the company the respondent failed to clarify the said discrepancies. She even neglected to appear before the screening committee constituted by the Authority to consider her application when the dispute pertains to the genuinity of her claim of sole dependency.

#8. It is further submitted that though the claimant claimed to be the sole dependant heir of the deceased the service record revealed the names of other sons and daughter of said Tulsi Bouri and therefore it was necessary to seek the clarification for arriving at a concrete decision .On two occasions she did not appear and lastly appeared before the screening committee and gave the reasoning that the other named family members were illiterate and had no knowledge about the service /development so the compassionate appointment should only be given to her. She failed to furnish any “No objection” from such family members which is otherwise a mandatory and non- negotiable requirement of the Authority according to the prevailing rules. Further submission advanced by the Authority that despite having sufficient discrepancies the authority being a State, considered the beneficial aspect of the employee and decided to call her again with requisite documents and accordingly gave the letter on April 3rd, 2003. Long thereafter lastly the respondent produced the succession certificate on June 9th, 2005.

#9. It is contended that the succession certificate may be considered as a proof of her claim as a legal heir of the deceased but failed to substantiate that she was dependant on her mother. In the meantime the company despite she having failed to clear the ambiguity, proposed the claimant to take MMCC of Rs. 3000/- in lieu of employment but that offer was turned down by the Respondent and demanded the employment only. Accordingly she was again asked to submit the No objection from the other family members whose names were found in the office record and several communications took place since July 2003 to November 2011 in this regard.

#10. It is further contended by the learned advocate that the claimant /Writ petitioner although failed and neglected to cooperate with the Authority, filed the writ petition claiming the MMCC back from the date of death of her mother. The prayer of the petitioner was allowed by the Hon’ble Single Bench with 6% interest which was completely on an erroneous interpretation of law and facts. It is further contended by the learned advocate that in another identical set of Appeal the same travelled up to Hon’ble Supreme Court where the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench was upheld that the Company was held liable to pay MMCC back for a period of three years commencing from the date of filing of the writ petition.

#11. Further argument advanced was that the amount as claimed if allowed to be paid would be to Rs. 44,84,635.08 /- plus interest which will be a huge burden and ultimately would be a catalyst for wastage of public money, when it is a subsidiary under the Coal India Ltd. The learned Single Bench failed to consider the absence of any reason, for the inordinate delay in approaching the Court claiming the arrears amount towards MMCC starting from 26 th November, 2000 till 2024.

#12. It is strenuously argued that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered, while allowing the prayer of the writ petitioner from the death of the mother with interest, the observations made in number of cases by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Hon’ble Court regarding payment of arrear. Accordingly the Appellant Authority prayed for modification in case the order impugned is allowed to sustain, for a period of three years backward commencing from the date of filing the writ petition as the law pertaining to the limitation for being awarded MMCC has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & ors vs Dukhini Bhuiya (Civil Appeal no 673 of 2023).

#13. On the other hand the appellant /writ petitioner/claimant represented through her learned advocate, assailed before the court that she being the widowed daughter of Tulsi Bouri who died in harness, prayed for an compassionate employment in terms of the prevailing settlement, by letter dated 14.12.2000 as she was not willing to receive the MMCC. Immediately thereafter on 14.3.2001 she also submitted all her documents to substantiate her claim. After that also whenever it was asked for she furnished all the documents but the authority did not consider the same nor provided the death cum retirement benefit of her mother and accordingly she had to apply for succession certificate which was granted on 18.8.2003. Despite submitting the same, the company did not release the death benefit.

#14. It is also argued that even after clarifying all the queries ,the final decision of her employment reached up to highest level as sent for the final approval and accordingly the authority placed her in the final employment status list being WD-2392 with the remark ‘under process’ . It is her further contention that this entire process took long 24 years and she grew older and surpassed the age bar and then only she made the representation dated 19.8.2024 intimating that she belongs to schedule caste community and is facing funds crunch as her mother was the sole breadwinner and accordingly prayed for the amount of MMCC instead of the employment, from the date of death of her mother.

#15. In course of argument, it is also submitted that in identical situations, the dependent of the deceased employee filed a writ petition being W.P.O No. 331 of 2020 and W.P. O number 332 of 2020, where the Hon’ble Court by order dated 20th October, 2020 directed the Director, Personnel of ECL to consider the representation and to pass reasoned order and also directed that ECL authority to have the same view that monetary compensation has to be paid from the date of death of employee. In this regard the learned advocate has relied upon the following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court , 1 (Central Coalfield vs Bipini Murmu & ors ) 2(Mohan Mahato vs Central Coaldield Ltd & ors ) 3 (Sukhomoni Hembram vs Union of India. 1 2024 SCC online SC 1535 2 (2007) 8 SCC 549

#16. It is further submitted that Chapter IX of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) provides for social security. Clause 9.3.1 of NCWA provides for employment to dependent of workers who are disabled permanently and also those who die while in service and also provides for the manner of implementation of such provisions in the following clauses. Clause

9.3.2 of NCWA provides that so far as female dependents are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by paragraph/clause 9.5.0 and by no means the Authority can deny such settlement even on the ground of delay. In this regard relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 4 (Subhadra vs Ministry of Coal and Anr). It is further contended that the petitioner is illiterate lady and in such circumstances, naturally it was difficult for her to comprehend the rules and regulations guiding their case and to forthwith act the formalities but the complicated and lengthy procedure for consideration of the prayer of the claimant and the gross negligence on the part of the appellant authority are the root causes for this inordinate delay which disentitled her from having the opportunity of employment and further to drag her to court .In this regard the Learned Advocate has relied upon a decision reported in5 ( S.K Mastan Bee vs General Manager ,South Central Railway and another )

#17. However, the Hon’ble Single Bench while allowing her prayer, granted interest only about 6% when she is entitled to 18% interest considering the prolonged delay and harassment faced by her, and hence she has also preferred the intra court appeal, against the said Order. The Learned 3 2024 SCC online cal 17361 4 (2018) 11 SCC 201 5 2002 SCC online SC 1160 Advocate relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.Kapur versus Director of 6and Gorakhpur University vs Shetala Prasad 7 in support of his contention that the interest to be awarded at 18%.

#18. Heard the submissions of the learned advocates of the parties of both the Appeals. Analysis It is undisputed that Tulsi Bouri since deceased was an employee of the Authority (ECL) and she died in harness. The stand taken by the appellant/authority that the said Tulsi Bouri got the appointment on compassionate ground and the claimant was the married daughter so otherwise she was not entitled to have an appointment on compassionate ground unless she fulfils the required criteria which she failed to substantiate. According to the Authority, the service record revealed that Tulsi Bouri had two sons and a daughter but it was the claimant who applied for compassionate appointment claiming to be the sole dependant heir of the deceased. In this regard the letter of reply dated April 25, 2001 of the claimant, if looked into, would suggest the claimant specifically stated that she is the only daughter of Tulsi Bouri and it is not necessary to submit any “No Objection Certificate” as called for.

#19. The screening committee consisting of three members was constituted by the Appellant Authority who further asked for clarification regarding other members of the family namely Niren Bouri, Nareen Bouri ,Nirupa Bouri and