Chattisgarh High Court
South Eastern Coalfield Limited vs Bihari Lal on 27 July, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 89 of 2022
1. South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through The Chairman Cum
Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
2. The General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited,
Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh.
3. Deputy Chief Personnel Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited,
Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh.
4. The Personnel Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Churcha
Colliery, Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh.
5. Sub Area Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Churcha
Colliery, Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
1. Bihari Lal S/o Late Dholu Ram Aged About 31 Years Caste Uraon,
R/o Minus Quarters, House No. 1257, Vivekanand Colony,
Charchar Collliery, District Korea, Chhattisgarh.
2. Vijay Lal Sahu S/o Late Dholu Ram Aged About 20 Years Caste
Uraon, R/o Minus Quarters, House No. 1257, Vivekanand Colony,
Charchar Collliery, District Korea, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
27.07.2022
Heard Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned senior counsel for the
appellants. Also heard Mr. Syed Majid Ali, learned counsel, appearing for
the respondents.
2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 13.12.2021
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.3007 of 2021.
3. The matter relates to dependent employment, retiral dues and other
terminal benefits on account of death of the father of the respondents /
writ petitioners, namely, Dholu Ram, who died on 23.10.2012 while
working as General Mazdoor with the appellants. The order, out of which
this appeal arises, was the third writ petition that had been filed by the
respondents / writ petitioners.
4. At the very outset, Mr. Sinha submits that directions of the learned
Single Judge insofar as payment of gratuity along with interest is
concerned, the appellants have no grievance as the same has been
complied with and this appeal is limited to the direction issued in respect
of dependent employment of the writ petitioners.
5. On the death of the father of the writ petitioners, they had filed an
application for grant of dependent employment. Their claim was not
entertained on the ground that service record of their father was not
traceable.
6. This had resulted in filing of Writ Petition (S) No.6576 of 2016. In
the said writ petition, separate affidavits on 27.12.2016 were filed
by Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Manager, Personnel.
Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit of Chairman-cum-Managing Director
read as follows:
"6. The service record of the deceased employee is
not traceable despite all efforts made by SECL. A
committee was constituted to trace the records and
the committee submitted a report to the effect that
the record were not traceable. Two employees who
were responsible for custody of the records/
documents have been charge-sheeted.
7. It is submitted that management is always ready
to provide compassionate employment and terminal
benefits accrued as company's rule to the legal heirs
of Late Dholu Ram S/o Mohra ex-worker after receipt
of succession certificate/declaratory decree issued
by the competent court in respect of declared son of
Late Dholu Ram S/o Mohra ex-worker."
7. Paragraph 13 of the affidavit of Manager, Personnel is relevant and
the same reads as follows:
"13. In view of the above, it is submitted that
management is always ready and willing to provide
compassionate employment and terminal benefits
accrued as per company's rule to the legal heirs of
Late Dholu Ram S/o Mohra ex-worker after receipt of
succession certificate issued by the competent court
in respect of declared son of Late Dholu Ram S/o
Mohra ex-worker."
8. Subsequent thereto, the claim of the writ petitioners was rejected by
the appellants by an order dated 21.02.2017, as against which a writ
petition, being Writ Petition (S) No.1037 of 2017, came to be filed.
9. Both the writ petitions were disposed of on 29.11.2017. It was
observed as follows :
"8. In view of the above consideration, both Writ
Petition (S) No.1037 of 2017 and Writ Petition (S)
No.6576 of 2016 are being disposed off at this
stage with liberty to the petitioners to apply for
succession certificate before the competent
authority under the law. Thereafter, the petitioners
may again approach the respondent authority and
seek appropriate relief. In the event succession
certificate is granted to the petitioners by the
competent authority under the Law, it will be open
for the petitioners to claim other reliefs including
interest on account of delay in release of retiral
dues due to loss of records."
10. A suit being Civil Suit No.20-A of 2019 was instituted. The learned
Trial Court by judgment and order dated 25.02.2020, decreed the suit
holding that the writ petitioners are the sons of deceased Late Dholu
Ram.
11. Armed with the said decree, the writ petitioners approached the
appellants, but neither dependent employment nor terminal benefits were
provided. Consequently, recourse was taken by the writ petitioners to
approach this Court.
12. Though the application for dependent employment did not
specifically indicate who between petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2
should be given dependent employment, by filing an affidavit, the
petitioner No.2 has stated that in the event of grant of dependent
employment, the same be given to petitioner No.1.
13. A contention was advanced before the learned Single Judge on
behalf of the appellants that father of the writ petitioners ought to have
retired on 01.01.2008, but he was erroneously allowed to continue till the
date of his death on 23.10.2012 and when the Chairman-cum-Managing
Director and Manager (Personnel) had filed affidavit(s) in Writ Petition (S)
No.6576 of 2016, they had made statements in absence of service record
of Dholu Ram. Subsequently, the service record of Late Dholu Ram was
traced out and accordingly, it was found that Dholu Ram was to retire on
01.01.2008. Hence, claim of dependent employment would not arise.
14. The learned Single Judge at paragraphs-21 and 22 observed as
follows :
"21. Accordingly, the argument of learned counsel
for the respondents/SECL that petitioners are not
entitled for dependent employment on the ground
that the service records of deceased Dholu Ram
were not available and he ought to have been
retired on 01/08/2008 as established on
subsequent enquiry is rejected. Even otherwise,
the petitioners have been declared the legal
representatives of the deceased Dholuram by
decree of declaration granted by jurisdictional
Civil Court under Section 34 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963, in which the
respondents were also party defendant, therefore,
decree of declaration granted under Section 34 of
the Act of 1963 is binding the respondents under
Section 35 of the Act of 1963 and respondents are
obliged to consider and decide petitioners' case
for dependent employment as per Clause 9.4.0 of
the NCWA-V within 30 days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
22. Now coming to the question that petitioners
are entitled for interest on payment of gratuity.
The amount of gratuity could have been paid to
the petitioners but it was not being paid and
ultimately, the amount of gratuity has been
deposited with the Controlling Authority/R.L.C.
(Central) Bilaspur on 18/06/2021 (Annexure R/14)
by virtue of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 and petitioners would be
entitled for interest @ 10% from the date of death
of their father i.e. 23/10/2012 till the date of
payment of gratuity. Respondents/SECL is
directed to make payment of the aforesaid
amount within 30 days from the date of production
of a copy of this order. However, the remaining
interest will be paid by the respondents/SECL to
the petitioner within 45 days from the date of
receipt of copy of this order. The amount of
gratuity deposited with the Controlling
Authority/R.L.C. (Central) Bilaspur shall be paid to
the petitioners, if applied by them, expeditiously."
15. This Court will not comment on the submission of Mr. Sinha that
Dholu Ram was erroneously allowed to continue beyond 01.01.2008.
Such submission cannot be tested in a proceeding of present nature,
more particularly, in view of the fact that no order had been placed on
record stating that he had retired on 01.01.2008. Fact remains that Dholu
Ram died while discharging his duties and therefore, for intents and
purposes, it must be held that he died in-harness. Therefore, the view
taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be unreasonable.
16. In that view of the matter, we find no good ground to interfere with
the order of the learned Single Judge, and therefore, finding no merit, writ
appeal is dismissed. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Anu
