[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
M/S. Eastern Coalfields Limited vs Tulushi @ Tulsi @ Tulashi Bouri And Ors on 19 February, 2026
OD-1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
APO/83/2025
IN
WPO/316/2024
IA NO: GA/1/2025
M/S. EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED
VS
TULUSHI @ TULSI @ TULASHI BOURI AND ORS.
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
Date: 19th February, 2026.
APPEARANCE:
Mr. Manik Das, Adv.
...for the appellant.
Mr. Partha Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Amal Kr. Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Debashis Das, Adv.
...for the respondent/writ petitioner.
The Court: Mr. Manik Das, learned advocate appearing for the appellant
submits that the appeal has been filed against the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge
since an issue being raised by the appellant herein regarding submission of No
Objection Certificate by the other legal heirs was not decided. Authorities cannot
proceed without NOC being obtained from the other legal heirs in view of the fact
that in the course of a verification of claim, the fact came to light that there was a
second wife and three offspring from the second marriage. Having submitted so, on
query made by the Court, learned advocate has pointed out that at no point of time
an NOC was asked to be submitted by the authorities. There is also no material on
record to show that any claim has been raised by the person, who according to the
appellant, was found in verification to be a second wife and offspring from the
second marriage. Another issue raised by the appellant in the present appeal is
award of interest.
In this connection, he refers to and relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in
the case of M/S. Eastern Coalfields Limited and Another -Vs- Dukhni Bhuiya
passed in SLP (Civil) No. 18815 of 2022 on 13.10.2023. A copy of the order has been
handed over to the Court. It is submitted that as in the case of Dukhni Bhuiya
(Supra) in the case of the present petitioner also there is a delay of nearly a decade
in making a claim for monetary compensation and, therefore, award of interest by
the learned Single Judge on the claims with effect from the date of death of the
employee (12.09.2013) is unsustainable.
While making his submission, he has also referred to provisions in the NCWA
to show that there is a procedure therein for verification of claims and relying upon
such procedure, the exercise of verification of claim was initiated by the concerned
officials. He has referred to averments made in the report filed before the learned
Single Judge to substantiate his submission while processing the writ petitioner
claim. A fact emerged regarding there being a son, who was not mentioned in the
service records. On account of such fact, the authorities took recourse to the
procedure for verification of claim.
The learned Advocate for the writ petitioner/respondent, at the very outset,
has drawn attention of the Court towards the averments made in paragraph 13 of
the report filed by the appellant in the writ proceeding. He submits that after
calling the present writ petitioner to their office, they have ascertained the claim
and after ascertaining her identity, the other dues under the heading "Pension",
"CMPF", gratuity and Life Cover Scheme have been paid to the present writ
petitioner. The payments having made, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants
to now contend that there is any doubt regarding the present writ petitioner being a
dependent within the meaning of Clause 9.3.O of the N.C.W.A for grant of benefits
under 9.5.
Therefore, in para 27 of the report authorities have without admitting to the
claim, stated that the writ petitioner would be entitled to get the dues from the date
prior to three years from the date of filing of the writ petition. It is further pointed
out from the brief that the N.C.W.A contains provisions for soliciting an NOC, but
only in respect of an employment under N.C.W.A. He has referred to the Modalities
for Processing the Employment to the Dependent under N.C.W.A issued by the
authorities in this regard. No objection is also to be taken only from the members
whose name appears in the service record.
The submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant therefore, that
there was any doubt or there was any requirement or that they were, in any way,
entitled to seek an NOC for the benefit of MMCC is unsustainable. The document
required for the benefit of MMCC contained in the same modalities procedure does
not include an NOC. The same only requires the following documents to be taken:
"1. Application from the wife of the deceased with date.
2. Death Certificate (In case of death),
3. Death Registration Certificate,
4. Copy of SRE/Service Book/Form- 'F'/LLTC/LTC Option Form
& PS-3/4,
5. Relationship Certificate,
6. Indemnity bond in commensurate with the claim of MMCC,
7. Affidavit for Maintenance Allowance in commensurate with
the claim,
8. Declaration from two permanent literate employees,
9. Age Assessment Report or Date of Birth as per Matriculation
Certificate,
10. Separate Register for MMCC is to be maintained."
He, thus, submits that the authorities are only harassing the writ petitioner.
He has submitted that the decisions relied upon by the appellant are not applicable
to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The writ petitioner has referred
to decisions in the case of Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Sumi Kamin and Others,
Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Purnima Singh & Ors . and Sukumoni Hembram Vs.
Union of India and Others. He has also referred to decisions in the case of M/S
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Putul Rabidas and Eastern Coalfields Limited &
Ors. Vs. Bipin Marandi & Ors. to submit that the law by now is settled regarding
the benefit of MMCC being automatic and with effect from the date of death of the
deceased employee. The authorities exhibit a pattern of litigation in respect of all
claims and such attitude was also deprecated by this Court by awarding exemplary
cost and interest and directing for identifying the concerned officers for their lapses
and for protracting claims unnecessarily.
Mr. Manik Das, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that
since there is paucity of time today, he will be making his submission in response to
the citations relied upon by the writ petitioner/respondent.
The matter is taken up next on 12 th March, 2026.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)
(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)
KB/sp3
AR(CR)
