Eastern Coalfields Limited vs Sumi Kamin And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 2633 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Eastern Coalfields Limited vs Sumi Kamin And Others on 20 August, 2024

Author: Debangsu Basak

Bench: Debangsu Basak

                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
         IN APPEAL FROM ITS CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                              Original Side


     Present:
     The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
                           and
     The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
                            APO No. 60 of 2023
                             WPO 3145/2022
                           Eastern Coalfields Limited
                                      Vs.
                           Sumi Kamin and Others.

     For the appellant           : Mr. Manik Das, Adv.
     For the respondents         : Mr. Partha Ghosh, Adv.
                                  Mr. Amal Kumar Datta, Adv.
                                  Ms. Simran Sureka, Adv.
                                  Mr. Debashis Das, Adv.
     Heard on                    : July 30, 2024
     Judgment on                 : August 20, 2024
Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.

1. The appeal at the behest of Eastern Coalfields Limited is in

assailment of an order dated March 24, 2023 passed in WPO 3145 of

2022.

2. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge allowed the writ

petition filed by the private respondent directing the appellant to pay

the Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation (MMCC) to the writ

petitioner with effect from the January 22, 2010 i.e. the date

following the date of death of deceased employee with interest

thereon at the rate of 6% per annum.

3. Learned advocate for the appellant contended that the

impugned order was passed by learned Single Judge without

considering the submission made on behalf of the appellant in their

report on affidavit. It was urged that the impugned order was passed

under misconstruction of the provisions of the National Coal Wage

Agreement (NCWA).

4. Learned advocate for the appellant also submitted that learned

Trial Judge did not consider the submissions of the appellant to the

effect that the appellant was not in a position to ascertain, among

more than one female dependant of the deceased employee, as to

which female dependant was entitled for employment or the MMCC,

unless an application in this regard was received from the dependant

claiming benefits with 'no objection' from others.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant further contended that the

learned Single Judge did not appreciate that there was no

application for employment by the private respondent. The

application dated May 26, 2010 was filed seeking appointment for

the son of the writ petitioner which was governed by Clause 9.3.0 of

the relevant NCWA and was not governed by Clause 9.5.0. Similarly,

learned Trial Judge also failed to appreciate that payment of MMCC

was governed by Clause 9.5.0 and not under clause 9.3.0 of the

NCWA. It was further submitted that payment of MMCC is not an

alternative for employment under clause 9.3.0.

6. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that the

learned Single Judge did not consider that MMCC was an alternate

for employment only in case of a female dependant in terms of clause

9.5.0.

7. It was further contended by learned advocate for the appellant

that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the original

written application was filed praying inter alia for compassionate

appointment of the son of respondent No.1 and in the alternative for

release of MMCC for the writ petitioner. It was contended that once

the option for employment has been exercised for a male dependant,

there was no opportunity for the female dependant to exercise the

option for employment or MMCC.

8. It was further contended on behalf of the appellant that

learned Single Judge erred in considering that no plausible

explanation was offered by the writ petitioners as to what prevented

her from approaching the court immediately on the death of her

husband. The application for employment of her son was pending

since 2010 which was disposed on April 26, 2018.

9. Learned advocate for the appellant also contended that the

impugned order is bad in law so far as it directs payment of MMCC

from the date of death of the employee concerned. It was argued that

learned judge was also not justified in awarding interest on due

amount from such date. In support of his contention, learned

advocate for the appellant relied upon (2008) 8 Supreme Court

Cases 648 (Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh), (2016)

13 Supreme Court Cases 797 (Asgar Ibrahim Amin vs. Life

Insurance Corporation of India), (2022) Supreme Court Cases

641 (Rushibahi Jagdishchandra Pathak vs. Bhavnagar Municipal

Corporation).

10. Relying upon (2015) 3WBLR (Cal) 464 (M/s Eastern

Coalfields Limited vs. Dewanti Kumari), learned advocate for the

appellant submitted that in terms of the National Coal Wage

Agreement (NCWA), the management of the coal companies are

authorized to refer the matter to joint Bipartite Committee for

interpretation of the provisions of NCWA.

11. Learned advocate for the appellant also relied upon the

judgment in the case of (Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Kumari

Kiran Singh and Others) in support of the proposition that it was

not open for the courts to rewrite the terms of NCWA in respect of

compassionate appointment. The same was handiwork of the joint

deliberations between the employer and the representatives of

employees which is an exception to the general rule of appointment,

should be strictly adhered to.

12. Learned advocate for the appellant also submitted that

payment of MMCC to the writ petitioner, was directed from the date

of death of employee in a case before learned Single Judge of this

Court, being WPA 17269 of 2021 (Smt. Dukhni Bhuiya vs. M/s

Eastern Coalfields Limited). The order so passed on November 16,

2021 was assailed before a Coordinate Bench of this Court being

MAT 86 of 2022 (M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Smt. Dukhni

Bhuiya). By a judgment and order passed on April 21, 2022, the

judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge was affirmed

directing payment of MMCC form the date of death of the employee.

M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited carried a Special Leave Petition

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6730 of 2023

(M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Dukhni Bhuiya). The Hon'ble

Supreme Court was pleased to quash and set aside both the orders

passed by learned Single Judge and the Coordinate Bench of this

Court and limited the payment of MMCC to three years prior to the

date of the filing of the writ petition.

13. Learned advocate for the appellant also relied upon the

decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in APOT 50 of 2024

(M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited and Anr. vs. Fulwa Devi and

Ors.) where, claim for monetary compensation was allowed from the

date of application to process the claim of the widow for

appointment. Similarly, in APO 129 of 2023 (Eastern Coalfields

Limited vs. Bodi Mejhain and Ors.) and FMA 618 of 2024 (Eastern

Coalfields Limited vs. Sanjukta Nayak alias Sanjukta Nahak alias

Sanjukta Nahaka & Ors), a Coordinate Bench of this court directed

payment of MMCC from the date of application on the ground that

right to receive MMCC embodied in NCWA needed to be exercised by

making an application.

14. On the other hand, learned advocate for the writ

petitioner/respondent submitted that in terms of NCWA, the right to

receive MMCC vests in the dependent of a deceased employee which

accrues from the date of death of such employee. Learned advocate

for the respondent relied upon the judgment and order passed in

FMA 98 of 2023(M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Smt. Pnawa

Bhuiya), MAT No. 1006 of 2022 (M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited

vs. Smt. Ambabati Mahali), MAT No. 1007 of 2022(M/s Eastern

Coalfields Limited vs. Smt. Dulali Majhian@ Majhan Ors.), MAT

1489 of 2022 (M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Smt. Chapala

Kora), MAT No. 915 of 2023 (M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited &

Ors. vs. Kosmi Devi Bhiya & Ors), and Civil Appeal No. 8089 of

2002 (S. K. Mustan Bee vs General Manager, South Central

Railway & Anr.). It was also submitted by learned advocate for the

private respondent that the orders passed by the Coordinate Benches

of this court in some of the aforesaid cases were assailed at the

behest of Eastern Coalfields Limited and the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

refused to interfere with such orders in S.L.P Diary Nos.15950 of

2023, 33608 of 2022, 34579 of 2022 and 27524 of 2023

respectively.

15. For the selfsame proposition that MMCC is payable from the

date of death of the employee, learned advocate for the writ

petitioner/respondent also relied upon the judgment and order

passed by the Coordinate Benches of this court in MAT 1257 of

2021 (M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Smt. Kajol Badyakar &

Ors.), FMA 1693 of 2019 (M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited vs.

Smt. Shefali Khan & Ors.), APOT 49 of 2019 (M/s Eastern

Coalfields Limited & Ors. Premlata Devi Ors.), APOT 518 of 2007

(Smt. Chhaya Singh Sardar vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.), APOT

88 of 2013 (M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Bipini Marandi

Ors.), APOT 151 of 2016 (M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited vs.

Bimali Majhain Ors.), APO 61 2023 (Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs.

Champa Munda & Ors), APO 189 2023 (Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

Vs. Smt. Mina Bouri & Ors), 2024 SCC On Line 1535 (Central

Coalfields Limited vs. Bipini Murmu) and Civil Appeal No. 8089

of 2002 (S. K. Mustan Bee vs General Manager, South Central

Railway & Anr.)

16. Relying upon the decision in APOT 269 of 2014 (M/s

Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors. vs. Kajoli Bouri), learned

advocate for the respondent submitted that not only MMCC is

payable from the date of death of the employee but the Coordinate

Bench of this court also observed that the coal company is under

obligation both, to advise the female dependant of her right and

guide her to the appropriate option.

17. Learned advocate for the respondent also submitted that a

special bench of this court, constituted on the issue involved in this

appeal, being FMA 4401 of 2016 (Putul Rabidas vs. M/s Eastern

Coalfields Limited & Ors.), observed that employment/monetary

compensation is automatic upon death and is a matter of right. No

application to claim the right of MMCC is required. Such decision of

the Special Bench was upheld in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

18. Relying upon judgment passed in SLP (Civil) 16734 of 2022

(State of Rajasthan & ors. Vs. O.P. Gupta), Civil Appeal No. 4100

of 2022 (Shri M. L. Patil (Dead) through LRs vs. The State of Goa

and Anr.) and 1999 SCC 450 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Ltd. vs. Dolly Das), it is submitted on behalf of writ petitioners that

the MMCC being payable monthly giving rise to fresh cause of action

every month, delay in approaching the court is not fatal.

19. Learned advocate for the respondent also submits that in

accordance with the judicial discipline, a decision by Coordinate

bench should be followed. To such proposition, reliance is placed on

a decision reported in (2004) 11 SCC 26 (State Punjab & Anr. Vs

M/s Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. & Anr.)

20. Learned advocate for the writ petitioner has drawn our

attention to a reasoned order dated November 27, 2020 passed by

the Director (Personnel), Eastern Coalfields Limited in the case of one

Smt. Sanju Bhuina @ Sanjhawa, through which, monetary

compensation was directed to be paid from the date of death of

deceased employee. It is contended that the authorities cannot

discriminate between similarly circumstanced beneficiaries. The

benefits extended to one should be uniformly applied under similar

circumstances. In support of such contention, reliance is placed on

(2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 403 (Purnendu Mukhopadhyay

and others vs V. K. Kapoor and another).

21. The husband of the writ petitioner/respondent namely Langra

Munda was an employee of the Eastern Coalfield Limited. The said

employee died in harness on January 21, 2010. The writ petitioner

applied for compassionate appointment for her son Rajesh Munda.

Other legal heirs of the deceased employee, namely the sons Diku

Munda and Mahendar Muda and the daughter Sunita Munda, by a

writing dated February 24, 2010 expressed their 'no objection' to

such employment in favour of Rajesh Munda.

22. Such application for compassionate appointment of the son of

deceased employee was processed. Several communications were

exchanged between the parties. The son of deceased employee, by a

letter dated January 08, 2015, from the Assistant Manager,

Madhujore Colliery, was asked to appear before the area screening

committee. Ultimately, such application for compassionate

appointment was rejected by a writing dated May 10, 2018.

23. Upon rejection of the claim of her son Rajesh Munda for

appointment on compassionate ground, the writ petitioner, by an

application dated September 12, 2022, requested for release of

Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation (MMCC) from the date of

death of her husband. In the said letter, the petitioner specifically

stated that she had received death-cum-retirement terminal benefits

like provident fund, gratuity, pension etc. but admissible MMCC was

not paid to her.

24. Such prayer of the petitioner having not been allowed, the

petitioner approached before this court by filing a Writ Petition being

W.P.O. No. 3145 of 2022. The writ petition so filed on behalf of the

petitioner culminated into the impugned order, directing the

appellant to pay the Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation (MMCC)

to the writ petitioner with effect from January 22, 2010 i.e. the date

following the date of death of deceased employee with interest

thereon at the rate of 6% per annum.

25. The materials placed on record, demonstrates that the

appellants are aggrieved of the impugned order on the ground that

the petitioner never filed a claim for MMCC before September 12,

2022 and as such, learned Single Judge ought to have directed

payment of MMCC from the date of application i.e. September 12,

2022 instead of January 22, 2010. It was also contended that since,

the petitioner never claimed MMCC, the appellants were not at fault,

the direction for payment of interest upon the due amount at the rate

of 6% was not justified.

26. In the instant appeal, the primary question which has fallen

for our consideration is whether the writ petitioner is entitled for

MMCC, owing to the death of her husband, payable from the date

following the death of her husband as directed in the impugned order

or from the date of application made by her in this regard.

27. We have gone through the materials placed before us. We

have also perused the provisions of the NCWA governing the

payment of MMCC. Since the petitioner is a female dependant of the

deceased employee, the relevant provision governing her rights, is

Clause 9.5.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) which is

reproduced hereunder for convenience:

9.5.0 Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependants

Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependants of workmen who die while in service and who are declared medically unfit as per clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated as under:

(i). In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependant would have the option to either accept the monetary compensation of Rs 4000/- per month or employment irrespective of her age.

(ii). In case of death/total permanent disablement due to cause other than mine accident, and medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0.,if the female dependant is below the age of 45 years she will have the option either to accept

the monetary compensation of Rs. 3000/- per month or employment.

In case the female dependant is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment.

(iii). In case of death either in mine accident or for other reason or medical ufitness under clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of concerned worker is 12 years and above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (1) and (2) above. This will be effective from 1.1.2000.

(iv). Monetary compensation wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependant attains the age of 60 years.

(v). The existing rate of monetary compensation will continue.

The matter will be further discussed in the standardization committee and finalized.

28. A bare reading of the provisions of Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA,

indicates that the female dependant of an employee, who died in

harness, is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds, if

she is under a specified age or in the alternative, for Monthly

Monetary Cash Compensation till she attains the age of 60 years.

The provisions also contain a stipulation that if the deceased

employee left behind a female dependant as well as a male

dependant who is a minor above 12 years, such male dependant

shall be kept on live roster and until he attains the age of majority,

MMCC will be paid to the female dependant.

29. It is evident that the right to employment on compassionate

ground or the MMCC germinates on the death of an employee in

harness. Such legal position coupled with the provision contained in

Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of NCWA clearly indicates that MMCC is liable to be

paid from the date immediately following the death of the employee.

There is no specific provision in the NCWA which stipulates the

mandatory requirement of an application, in order to entitle the

female dependant to MMCC. There is also no specific provision

authorizing the department to remain sitting tight over the matter

unless an application in this regard is made by the concerned

dependant. Rather the words "if no employment has been offered"

and the words "the female dependant will be paid monetary

compensation as per rates at paras (1) and (2) above" clearly imply

that the MMCC is to be paid by the employer irrespective of any

claim. The employer is under obligation to offer the same. In the case

of Kajoli Bouri (Supra), it was observed that,

"It is evident from the provision that there is a financial

security which is afforded to the female dependant of a

deceased workman and the right crystallises

instantaneously upon the death of the workman. The

immediacy has per force to be inferred upon recognising

the provision to ensure that the female dependant of the

deceased workman or the bereaved family is not washed

away by the calamitous loss of the bread-earner. In the

event the female dependant opts for employment and it is

possible to offer employment, the employment has to be

given within reasonable time of the application being

made. If the female dependant entitled to apply for an

appointment does not apply for the employment within

reasonable time after the death of the workman, she

would be deemed to have exercised the option to receive

compensation which would be payable from the date of

death or the month following the date of death of the

workman. The right that inheres in the female dependant

of the deceased workman gives rise to a corresponding

obligation or duty on the part of the coal company to offer

and reach the monthly compensation to the female

dependant. The right to the compensation is

unconditionally immediate and is not dependant on any

application for the purpose. Indeed, given the rationale

behind the provision, it is the duty of the concerned coal

company to both advise the dependant female member of

a deceased workman of her rights and guide her to the

appropriate option. A government company as an

employer cannot be heard to say that a distressed family

would be deprived of the benefit by reason of any belated

application therefor. The appointment sought on

compassionate grounds may be declined on account of

delay or other cogent grounds; but the monthly

compensation has to be paid with effect from the date of

death of the workman or the month following the death."

30. Similar principles to the effect that MMCC to the dependant

was payable from the date following the date of death of the

employee and not from the date of application were also laid down

in consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of each

case in Smt. Pnawa Bhuiya (Supra), Smt. Ambabati Mahali

(Supra), Smt. Dulali Majhian@ Majhan (Supra), Smt. Chapala

Kora (Supra), Kosmi Devi Bhiya (Supra), Dewanti Kumari

(Supra), Smt. Kajol Badyakar (Supra), Smt. Shefali Khan (Supra),

Premlata Devi (Supra), Smt. Chhaya Singh Sardar (Supra),

Bipini Marandi (Supra), Bimali Majhain (Supra), Champa Munda

(Supra), Smt. Mina Bouri (Supra), Bipini Murmu (Supra). In some

of the aforesaid cases even delay in making applications for MMCC

was considered not a sufficient ground to disentitle a claimant or

for payment of the same from a later date.

31. The Special Bench decision of this court in the case of Putul

Rabidas (Supra), which was affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, it was noted that,

"63. We do record our approval............ Appointment or

compensation by payment of money to a female dependent of

a deceased worker is automatic upon death (subject to

fulfilment of the conditions in clause 9.3.4 insofar as

appointment is concerned). Even no application is required to

be made. Irrespective of the quantum of death benefits that

might have accrued in favour of a deceased worker, her

dependent (as defined in clause 9.3.3) would be entitled to

consideration for appointment, if she is of the required age, or

monetary compensation. None of the grounds assigned for

spurning the claim of Putul being of any worth, we set aside

the order dated May 29, 2015 of the General Manager (P &

IR)."

32. Learned advocate for the appellants have relied upon the

decision in Tarsem Singh (Supra). In the said case, it was observed

that normally belated service -related claim will be rejected on the

ground of delay and latches or limitation. However, it was noted that

one of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing

wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong,

the list can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy

with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong

commences, if such continuing wrong creates a continuous source of

injury. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that if the grievances

are in respect of any order or administrative decision which are

related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the

issue would affect this settled right of third parties, then the claim

will not be entertained.

33. Noting that the observations made in the case of Tarsem

Singh (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Asger Ibrahim

Amin (Supra) and Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation (Supra), in

the specific facts of the said cases, in consideration of the huge

unexplained delay, was pleased to limit the claim of pensionary

benefits to 3 years preceding the date of the petition filed before the

High Court.

34. Since, interpretation of any of the clause of the National

Coal Wage Agreement is not under challenge; the ratio laid down in

the case of Dewanti Kumari (Supra) has no manner of application in

the present case. Similarly, the case of Kumari Kiran Singh (supra),

exclusively deals with the claim of the petitioner for compassionate

appointment. There was no claim for monetary benefits in the said

case, the ratio laid down in the said case cannot be applied in the

facts of the present case.

35. In the case of Dukhni Bhuiya (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in a Civil Appeal preferred against an order passed in appeal

from the order of Single Judge, limited the claim for MMCC to 3

years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition in the High Court

in consideration of the particular facts of the said case. Supreme

Court noted that,

"5. In view of the said position...................... It is held that in the peculiar facts of the case where the respondent waited for almost 21 years before approaching the court by filing the writ petition seeking monetary compensation from the appellant, the amount as directed to be paid by this Court is adequate to meet the ends of justice."

36. In the case at hand, however, the peculiar facts noted in the

case of Dukhni Bhuiya (Supra), do not exist. The delay in

approaching the Court by the writ petitioner has been sufficiently

explained in this case. The husband of the writ petitioner died in

2010. An application for appointment of the son of deceased

employee was promptly made in a month of death of the employee.

The authorities took more than ten years in considering such

application for compassionate appointment which was ultimately

disposed in the year 2018. Thereafter, the writ petitioner

approached the authorities and ultimately the Court for MMCC.

Had the authorities decided on the application for compassionate

appointment within a reasonable time, the writ petitioner could

have approached the Court much earlier. The appellants cannot be

allowed to extract benefit of their own wrong.

37. In the facts of the case of Fulwa Devi (Supra), the writ

petitioner therein, had applied for compassionate appointment of

the brother-in-law of deceased employee who was never recognized

as a dependant in terms of NCWA. The claim of Fulwa Devi was

based on a memorandum of settlement executed by and between

the parties. In the instant case, there is no such bipartite

settlement between the parties. The writ petitioner herein has

staked her claim on the sole basis of NCWA. Therefore, the ratio in

the case of Fulwa Devi (Supra) cannot be applied in the facts of the

present case.

38. Similarly, in the case of Bodi Mejhain (Supra), the

Coordinate Bench noted a complete hiatus between January 02,

2001 and February 03, 2020 which was not explained and

therefore held the petitioner to be entitled for compensation from

February 2020. However, in the present case, there is no such

delay. The writ petitioner applied for MMCC within a reasonable

time, to be more specific within 3 years when the claim for

compassionate appointment of her son was rejected. Such delay

cannot be termed as complete hiatus.

39. In the case of Sanjukta Nayak (Supra), a Coordinate

Bench observed in the following terms i.e. to say:

"8. Notwithstanding a right to receive compassionate appointment or 'MMCC' benefits accruing in terms of the contract of employment, such right needs to be exercised, that is to say, an application for the same is to be made by the person entitled thereto, before the employer for consideration. On favourable consideration of the same, the right crystallizes. In the facts of the present case, such application was made in 1998."

40. However, in the order passed in the case of Putul Rabidas (Supra), it was laid by a Special Bench of this Court that, "Appointment or compensation by payment of money to a female dependent of a deceased worker is automatic upon death (subject to fulfilment of the conditions in clause 9.3.4 insofar as appointment is concerned). Even no application is required to be made."

41. For such observations of the Special Bench, which was

affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 6642-6643

of 2018, we are not in a position to return a finding that filing of an

application claiming MMCC by a female dependant of an employee

died in harness, was mandatory and for such reasons the claim of

the writ petitioner is required to be limited to the date of

application.

42. In the case of Purnendu Mukhopadhyay (Supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that the State cannot treat

employees similarly situated differently. Our attention was drawn to

the reasoned order passed by the appellant authorities dated

November 27, 2020, in support of the contention that once the

authorities have extended the benefits to other employees, the same

cannot be denied to the writ petitioner.

43. The appellants have also placed reliance on the ratio laid

down in the case of M/s Dewan Modern Breweries (Supra) to the

proposition that decision rendered by a Division Bench is binding.

There is no dispute with regard to such proposition. However, it

depends upon the subjective satisfaction that the persons treated

differently are similarly circumstanced which, in turn, calls for the

scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of each individual case.

44. In the facts of the present case, death in harness of the

employee concerned occurred on January 21, 2010. The writ

petitioner applied for compassionate appointment of her son within

a month of such death. We have already said that the authorities

took at least 8 long years to consider the application which was

ultimately rejected in the year 2018. The writ petitioner then

applied for MMCC from appellant authorities and consequently

approached the Writ Court in 2021.

45. No materials are placed before us that the MMCC was ever

offered to the writ petitioner. The authorities appear to be sitting

tight over the entitlement of the private respondent and have now

come up with a case of stale claim. In fact, in the circumstances of

the present case, no delay can be attributed to the writ petitioner.

Not only that, in view of ratio laid down in the case of Kajoli Bouri

(Supra), it is the appellant who was at fault, firstly, by not offering

the entitlement of writ petitioner and secondly, by not guiding her

through, to put in her claim.

46. In the light of discussions made hereinbefore, we find no

material to interfere with the findings of learned Single Judge as to

the entitlement of private respondents/writ petitioner in respect of

MMCC on account of death of her husband from the date following

the date of death. We also find no reason to interfere with the

direction for payment of interest on the due amount with effect from

such date. We find no merit in the appeal.

47. Accordingly, the instant appeal being APO No. 60 of 2023 is

hereby dismissed without any order as to costs and thus disposed of.

Connected applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

48. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for,

be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all

formalities.

[MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.]

49. I agree.

[DEBANGSU BASAK, J.]