Chattisgarh High Court
(A) Smt. Nasima Begam vs South Eastern Coalfiefld Limited on 24 November, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 388 of 2021
1.A Smt. Nasima Begam W/o Late Shajada Khan Aged About 61
Years
1.B Shanawaz Khan S/o Late Shajada Khan Aged About 41 Years
1.C Firoz Khan S/o Late Shajada Khan Aged About 39 Years
1.D Sabir Khan S/o Late Shaajada Khan
1.E Shabina Khan D/o Late Shajada Khan W/o Jalaluddin -A Aged
About 34 Years
1.F Mohd. Sams Tabrez Khan Late S/o Late Shahjada Khan Aged
About 29 Years .
1.G Jishan Mohd. Khan S/o Late Shahjada Khan Aged About 25
Years
1.H Rabiya Khan D/o Late Shahjada Khan Aged About 24 Years
All R/o Bartunga Colliery Chirmiri, Thana Chirmiri, Tahsil
Khadagawa District Korea Now R/o of 156 -B/ 21-D, B Mak
Town, Area Karela Bagh, Allahabad (Prayagraj) U.P.
---- Appellants
Versus
1 South Eastern Coalfield Limited South Eastern Coalfield
Limited, Through Its Chairman, Cum Managing Director,
Seepat Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
2 Director, Personal, Seepat Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
3 Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Regional Hospital Kurasia
Chirmiri Area District Korea Chhattisgarh
4 Chief Medical Superintendent, SECL Seepat Road Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
5 Deputy Regional Manager, Chirmiri Open Caste Project
Chirmiri District Korea Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate.
For Respondents No 1 to 3 and 5 : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Deputy Advocate
General.
For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Goutam Bhaduri, Judge
Judgment on board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
24.11.2021
Heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard
Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal is presented by the legal representatives of Shahjada Khan,
who were substituted during pendency of the writ petition, against an order
dated 14.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ
petition.
3. Writ petition was filed, essentially, with a prayer to declare the petitioner
as medically unfit and also to grant benefits to him and his family as per Clause
9.4.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-IX. The case presented by the
predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in the writ petition is that he was
suffering from various diseases and he had amputation on his leg. In the
appeal, it is stated that his right leg below the knee was amputated because of
development of Gangrene.
4. Because of the condition of the petitioner, request was made by him to
declare him medically unfit ,and as the same was not done, recourse was
taken by filing the writ petition.
5. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that because of his
physical condition, on the basis of recommendation of the Medical Screening
Board, he was given "Alternative Surface Duty".
6. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had retired on
superannuation on 01.07.2012 and he died on 25.05.2013.
7. Neither the writ petitioner nor the respondents brought on record
Clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-IX.
8. Be that as it may.
9. On a query of the Court, Mr. Kotecha submits that the predecessor-in-
interest of the present appellants was paid salary till the date of his retirement.
10. When the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants continued to remain
on duty and accordingly, was paid full salary, the view taken by the learned
Single Judge cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity.
9. In that view of the matter, finding no merit, this appeal is dismissed.
No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Goutam Bhaduri)
Chief Justice Judge
Hem
