Hiramani vs Coal India Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 2598 Chatt

                                     1


                                                                           NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                  WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 5918 OF 2018
      Hiramani, W/o Harish Chandra, aged about 35 years, D/o Late Shri
Shyamlal, R/o Gram Panchayat Kevra, Post and Tahsil Bhaiyathan,
District Surajpur (CG)
                                                          ... Petitioner
                               versus
1.    Coal India Ltd., through Chairman, 10 Netaji Subhash Road,
Calcutta (West Bengal)
2.    South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG)
3.    Deputy Regional Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited,
Chirmiri Area, Post Haldibadi, District Korea (CG)
                                                        ... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board [28/09/2021]

1. Aggrieved by Order dated 26.3.2018 (Annexure P-1), the present

Writ Petition has been filed by Petitioner.

2. Vide the impugned Order, the claim for dependent employment by

Petitioner has been rejected. The ground of rejection has been only on the

ground of Petitioner being the married daughter of the deceased

employee.

3. The father of Petitioner was working under the Respondents as

General Mazdoor (Category-II) and who died in harness on 24.3.2016.

The deceased employee had a son who also died immediately thereafter

on 14.9.2016. Thereafter, the Petitioner, the only daughter, was left in the

family along with the widow of the deceased employee, as dependent.

4. Contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner is that the husband of

Petitioner also is an unemployed person and was staying along with the

widow after the death of the deceased employee. Petitioner, in her

capacity as the daughter of the deceased employee, had moved an

application for dependent employment but vide the impugned Order her

claim has been rejected only on the ground that the Petitioner happened

to be a married daughter and thereby she would not fall within the

definition of 'dependents'.

5. As regards the issue of married daughter whether would fall within

the definition of 'dependent' or not, this Court in the case of "Smt. Asha

Pandey Vs. Coal India Ltd., & Others" decided on 5.3.2016 in W.P.(S) No.

4994/2015 has specifically held that the married daughter would also be a

dependent to the deceased employee. In the said judgment, the clause of

excluding married daughter from the definition of 'dependents' under the

National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) was held to be bad. The

judgment of this Court in "Smt. Asha Pandey" (supra) has been upheld

also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, this Court in a series of

decisions has held that the action on the part of Respondents in rejecting

the claim of dependent employment only on account of marital status of

the claimant being not proper. Once when the law stands settled by the

aforementioned decision and also subsequently by a catena of decisions

rendered by this Court, the action of Respondents in rejecting the claim of

Petitioner, therefore, is unsustainable and deserves to be and is

accordingly set-aside.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent SECL, however,

submits that Petitioner as such cannot claim dependent employment as a

matter of right. In spite of the fact that this Court has settled the issue that

married daughter can also be considered for dependent employment, the

aspect of dependency has to be verified and scrutinized and only

thereafter can the Petitioner be further considered for dependent

employment.

7. Learned Counsel for Respondent SECL further submits that there

can also be a situation where the Petitioner or the daughter must have got

married subsequent to the death of the deceased employee. In that case

also the dependency may change from the deceased employee to the

husband with whom the marriage has been undertaken subsequent to the

death of the deceased employee. In that event also the dependency part

has to be ascertained before reaching to a conclusion.

8. Be that as it may, since the impugned Order reflects the rejection

only on the ground of Petitioner being a married daughter and the order of

rejection of dependent employment on similar set of facts having already

been set-aside by this Court in "Smt. Asha Pandey" (supra), the present

matter is remitted back to the Authorities concerned who shall conduct

due verification and scrutiny, particularly in respect of the dependency

part, strictly in accordance with the provisions of NCWA, except for the

ground of marital status of Petitioner.

9. Considering the fact that it is a case where the death of the

deceased employee took place in the year 2016, the Respondents are

directed to take a final decision on the claim of Petitioner within an outer

limit of 60 days from the date of presentation of certified copy of this Order

before them.

10. Writ Petition accordingly stands partly allowed.

Sd/-

                                                                       (P. Sam Koshy)
/sharad/                                                                    Judge