Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sangita Mukherjee vs M/S. Eastern Coal Fields Limited & ... on 2 February, 2023
02.02.2023 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DL-2 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
(PP) APPELLATE SIDE
Ct.21
WPA 5984 of 2022
Sangita Mukherjee
Vs.
M/s. Eastern Coal Fields Limited & Ors.
Mr. Vivekananda Bose,
Mr. Soham De Dhara,
Mr. Ratikanta Pal
....for the petitioner.
Mr. Syed Nurul Arefin
....for ECL.
The petitioner's grievance is that despite being a
dependant daughter of her deceased father she was
not considered for compassionate appointment by
Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL). The petitioner's
father died-in-harness on May 3, 2021. The
petitioner got married on March 4, 2013, but started
living with her parents since August 12, 2015. The
Matrimonial Suit, being No.94 of 2017 culminated
into a decree of divorce by mutual consent on April
16, 2018. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner
was a divorcee since 2018 and residing with her
parents.
After the death of the petitioner's father, an
application was made by the petitioner's mother on
May 24, 2021 for appointment of the petitioner on
compassionate ground. Such prayer was also
2
reiterated on August 6, 2021. The petitioner also
made a request on January 28, 2022 for
consideration of the representations for her
appointment on compassionate ground.
The representation of the petitioner dated
January 28, 2022 was disposed of by a letter of
rejection dated March 9, 2022. It is the stand of the
ECL that a divorced daughter does not come within
the purview of the word "dependant" as specified in
the applicable NCWA (National Coal Wage Agreement).
Mr. Bose, learned counsel, appearing on behalf
of the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of
three-Judge Bench of this Hon'ble Court reported in
(2018) 2 CLJ 1 (Putul Rabidas Vs. Eastern
Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.). He submits that the Hon'ble
Court held that there was no good reason why a
divorcee daughter should be held to be excluded from
the construction of the words "unmarried daughter"
and be held ineligible for consideration of
appointment on compassionate ground. He submits
that the impugned order of rejection is bad in law and
should be set aside and/or quashed.
Mr. Arefin, learned counsel, appearing on behalf
of ECL submits that documents have been
manufactured by the petitioner and/or her mother in
support of the claim for compassionate appointment.
3
He refers to pages 27 and 29 of the writ petition in
support of his claim that there is no stamp, seal of
the company to show that the petitioner is a divorcee
daughter of the deceased employee. He refers to
pages 6 and 8 of his report on affidavit affirmed on
May 12, 2022 in support of his contention that the
daughter has never been shown to be a divorcee in
the records of the company and the wife of the
deceased employee is 100% nominee of him.
Having regard to the rival submissions of the
parties and the materials placed on record, this Court
is of the view:
(a) The ratio of Putul Rabidas (supra) is
squarely applicable to the facts of the case.
(b) No difference can be made between an
unmarried daughter and a divorcee
daughter as long as the divorcee daughter
is a dependant on the deceased employee.
(c) A divorcee daughter is also entitled to pray
for compassionate appointment in case she
is able to show that she is a dependant.
(d) There is no material suppression of any
fact before this Court. The document
annexed at page 29 of the writ petition only
goes to show that the wife of the deceased
employee is 100% nominee of him. The
said document is also supported by the
document annexed at page 8 of the report
on affidavit.
(e) The document annexed at page 27 of the
writ petition which is intended to show the
4
daughter/petitioner is a divorcee is also
not material for adjudication of the issues
in the present proceeding since ECL has
itself accepted that the petitioner is a
divorcee daughter and has rejected her
claim on that ground.
(f) Furthermore, this Court is of the view that
the nomenclature divorcee would not
persuade ECL to accept that the petitioner
is a divorcee/dependant without causing
investigation as to whether or not she is
entitled to compassionate appointment.
(g) There is no denial on record of the fact that
the decree that has been annexed to the
writ petition is not a valid one or is
procured by fraud.
In the light of the discussions above, this Court
is constrained to hold that the document annexed at
page 27 of the writ petition is not a material
document and has not caused suppression of any
material facts.
In the circumstances, the letters of refusal
dated March 9, 2022 and February 18, 2022
(annexed at pages 36 and 37 of the writ petition
respectively) are quashed and/or set aside.
The respondent no.4 and/or the respondent
no.5 are directed to consider the representation dated
January 28, 2022 within 4 weeks from date upon
giving a personal hearing to the petitioner in the light
of the decision reported in (2018) 2 CLJ 1 (Putul
Rabidas Vs. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.). A
reasoned order should be communicated to the
petitioner within 2 weeks of passing thereof.
With the directions aforesaid, WPA 5984 of
2022 is disposed of.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this
order duly downloaded from the official website of
this Hon'ble Court.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties upon
compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Lapita Banerji, J.)
