Jharkhand High Court
Sunita Devi vs Central Coalfields Ltd. Through ... on 25 February, 2021
-1- W.P. (S) No. 729 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 729 of 2018
Sunita Devi, aged about 42 years, wife of Late Prahlad Kumar,
permanent resident of Village- Saram, P.O. & P.S. Gomia, District-
Bokaro (Jharkhand), at present residing at Village- Kargali Colliery,
Mohalla- Field Quarters, P.O. & P.S. Bermo, District- Bokaro
(Jharkhand) ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Central Coalfields Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi
2. The General Manager (P & IR), Central Coalfields Ltd., Darbhanga
House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi
3. The Senior Manager (P/MP), Central Coalfields Ltd., Darbhanga House,
Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi
4. The Project Officer, Kargali (OC-UG), Central Coalfields Ltd., office of
the Project Officer, SDOCM(S), P.O. & P.S. Bermo, District- Bokaro
... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate
For the Respondent-CCL : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
-----
07/25.02.2021. Heard Mr. Kumar Harsh, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Central Coalfields
Limited.
2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view
of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising
due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any
technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been
heard on merit.
3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order
dated 21/23.09.2017. The prayer for payment of monetary compensation in
terms of National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) is also made in the writ
petition.
-2- W.P. (S) No. 729 of 2018
4. It has been averred in the writ petition that the husband of the
petitioner Prahlad Kumar was under the employment of the respondent-CCL
in the capacity of Driller, Category-IV, Kargali (UG), B & K Area. The
husband of the petitioner died in harness on 02.08.2000 and accordingly
death-cum-family certificate was issued by the Block Development Officer,
Bermo, Bokaro. The name of the husband of the petitioner was struck off
from the roll of the Kargali UG Project w.e.f. the date of his death vide order
dated 18.08.2000. The petitioner applied for her compassionate
appointment in place of her deceased husband by way of filing an
application on 26.09.2001. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected.
Aggrieved with the rejection, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
5. Mr. Harsh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on foreign
reasons, the case of the petitioner has been rejected. He further submits
that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and she
is entitled for compassionate appointment. He further submits that in terms
of NCWA, if compassionate appointment is not being provided, the
dependent is entitled for monetary compensation. He also submits that the
case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the judgment rendered by
this Court in the case of Most. Kaushalya Devi v. Central Coalfields
Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2005 (3) JLJR 160. He further submits that the
case of the petitioner is fit to be allowed in terms of the order passed by
this Court in the case of Surthi Devi v. Central Coalfields Limited in
W.P. (S) No. 4758 of 2017 . He also submits that the case of the
petitioner is also fit to be considered in view of the order passed in the case
of G.L. Bhatia v. Union of India and another , reported in (1999) 5
SCC 237. He refers paragraph 5 of that judgment. So far as monetary
-3- W.P. (S) No. 729 of 2018
compensation is concerned, he relied upon the judgment passed in the case
of Gangia Devi v. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others in L.P.A.
No. 657 of 2018. On these grounds, he submits that the case of the
petitioner has been wrongly rejected by the respondents and, therefore, this
Court may interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL
submits that the petitioner is not legally wedded wife of the deceased
employee. He further submits that the mother of the deceased employee
has filed an application for appointment for his second son on
compassionate ground. He also submits that pursuant to the order dated
11.03.2019 passed in this case, the respondent-CCL has filed the
supplementary counter affidavit. He draws attention of the Court to
Annexure-A of the supplementary counter affidavit, which is the service
book of the deceased employee and submits that the name of the petitioner
has not been disclosed in the service book and only the names of mother,
brother and sister have been disclosed therein. He further submits that in
view of the notification with regard to payment of gratuity, the name of the
petitioner is also not there, contained in Annexure-B of the supplementary
counter affidavit. He further refers to Annexure-C of the supplementary
counter affidavit, which is Form-A- application for member of employees
benevolent/relief fund scheme and submits that the name of the petitioner
does not find figure therein. He further refers to Coal Mines Family Pension
Scheme, contained in Annexure-D of the supplementary counter affidavit
and submits that the name of the petitioner is also not there. He also took
the Court to Annexure-E of the supplementary counter affidavit, which is
the document of Coal Mines Provident Fund, wherein, the name of the
-4- W.P. (S) No. 729 of 2018
petitioner is also not disclosed. He also refers to Annexure-F of the
supplementary counter affidavit and submits that the case of the petitioner
was not processed in view of the fact that the matter was examined by the
respondent-CCL and it was found that mother of the deceased employee
has also applied for employment of her second son and that is why the case
of the petitioner was not processed. He relied upon the judgment rendered
in the case of Miss Kiran Kumari v. Central Coalfields Ltd. and
others, in W.P.(S) No. 2912 of 2010 which was dismissed vide order
dated 27.02.2018 and submits that the fact of that case is identical to
present case and in that view of the matter, this writ petition is fit to be
dismissed. He further submits that the said Miss Kiran Kumari's case was
carried before the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 229 of 2018 and
considering the fact that the name of that appellant was not appearing in
any of the record of the respondent-CCL, the order of the learned Single
Judge has been confirmed. However, the Division Bench in clear terms has
held in paragraph 17 that the writ of certiorari can only be issued in exercise
of power conferred to High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India if there is any perversity in the finding or there is jurisdictional error or
the order is contrary to the statutory provision. It has also been held by the
Division Bench of this Court that such case can be considered only if
succession certificate is produced before the respondent-CCL.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone
through the materials on record. It is an admitted position that there is no
document to suggest that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the
deceased employee. The documents annexed with the supplementary
counter affidavit, which have been taken note by the Court in the
-5- W.P. (S) No. 729 of 2018
submission of Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha and on perusal of those documents, it
transpires that the name of the petitioner is not figured in those documents.
The onus lies on the part of the petitioner to prove before the respondent-
CCL that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee.
8. In the judgment relied by Mr. Harsh, learned counsel for the petitioner
in the case of Most. Kaushalya Devi (supra), the mother-in-law of that
petitioner has sworn an affidavit to the effect that the petitioner of that case
is the legally married wife and in that view of the matter, that order was
passed by this Court.
9. In the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the
case of G.L. Bhatia (supra), the dispute with regard to legally wedded wife
was not there. It was an admitted position in that case that the petitioner
was legally wedded wife and there was no divorce between the husband
and wife, even though they might be staying separately and in that view of
the matter, that order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This fact
is not in the case in hand. Thus, the judgment relied by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is not helping the petitioner.
10. In the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the
case of Surthi Devi (supra), the respondent-CCL has not taken any decision
on the application of that petitioner for compassionate appointment and
that is why that order was passed in the said petition. The fact of that case
is different to the present case.
11. So far as the judgment in the case of Gangia Devi (supra) is
concerned, the fact in that case was different and the case of that petitioner
was considered for monetary compensation from the date of death of
deceased employee. The dispute of legality of marriage was not there in
-6- W.P. (S) No. 729 of 2018
that case. Thus, that judgment is also not helping the petitioner.
12. In view of the above discussions and considering the fact that the
petitioner has not been able to demonstrate about the legality of the
marriage, which is also not on the record of the respondent-CCL as
discussed above and also considering the fact that the judgments relied by
the learned counsel for the petitioner is on different footing and also
considering the fact that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of
this Court in L.P.A. No. 229 of 2018 in the case of Miss Kiran Kumari (supra)
is favouring the respondent-CCL, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
