Chintamani Devi @ Chintamani ... vs Central Coal Fields Limited
2021 Latest Caselaw 2120 Jhar

                                              1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               W.P.(S) No. 4964 of 2019
     Chintamani Devi @ Chintamani Munda                                 ...   Petitioner
                        Versus
     1. Central Coal Fields Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
        having its office at Darbhanga House, Kutchari, Kotwali, Ranchi
     2. Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi, Kutchari, Kotwali,
        Ranchi
     3. General Manager (P & IR), Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi, Kutchari, Kotwali,
        Ranchi
     4. General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Samadhan Kendra, Darbhanga
        House, Ranchi, Kutchari, Kotwali, Ranchi
     5. General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Barka-Sayal Area, Sayal, Patratu,
        Ramgarh
     6. Colliery Manager Mine "B" Bhurkunda Colliery of the Central Coalfields Limited,
        Bhurkunda, Patratu, Ramgarh
     7. Project Officer Bhurkunda Colliery of the Central Coal Fields Limited,
        Bhurkunda, Patratu, Ranchi
     8. Personnel Manager, Bhurkunda Colliery of the Central Coal Fields Limited,
        Bhurkunda, Patratu, Ranchi                             ... ..   Respondents
                                     ------

     CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
                  (Through: Video Conferencing)
                                     -----
     For Petitioner                   : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Advocate
     For Respondents                  Mr. Aditya Raman, Advocate
                                     ---
03/ 30.06.2021    The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction

upon the respondents to take immediate steps for payment of monetary compensation amount with interest to the petitioner from the date of death of her husband in terms of Clause II of NCWA 9.5.0.

The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. As per service excerpt, the husband of the petitioner namely Mangra Munda was appointed on 31.01.1973 and was working as an Explosive Carrier Cat-II in Mine "B" Bhurkunda Colliery under the respondents. He died in harness on 11.02.2002 and thereafter, death certificate was also issued by the Department of Saankhiki avm Mulyankan Nideshalaya, Jharkhand. It is specific case of the petitioner that after death of her husband, she applied for payment of death cum retiral benefits before the Colliery Manager, Bhurkunda Colliery Mine "B" in terms of Clause II of NCWA 9.5.0. Though, the application was filed on 01.08.2002 for payment of death-cum-retiral

benefits, but the same has not been extended to her. She also submitted all the relevant documents as required for extending the benefits of monetary compensation in terms of NCWA. The petitioner represented on several occasions, but the amount of monetary compensation has not been released till date though she has received other death-cum-retiral benefits like Gratuity, LCS and Pension is also fixed in her favour. As the benefit of monetary compensation has not been extended in favour of the petitioner, she has been approached this Court.

Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has been paid the benefit of death-cum-retiral benefit like Gratuity, LCS and pension has also been fixed and paid, but the amount of monetary compensation has not been extended till date, for which she is legally entitled as per the Clause II of NCWA 9.5.0 and as such, a direction may be given upon the respondents to extend the said benefits. He further submits that petitioner is not claiming compassionate appointment as she is over age. He further submits that the similar issue fell for consideration before this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (S) No.2869 of 2009 and this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 03.08.2015 has been pleased to hold that:

"Äs on date the petitioner has crossed the age of 45 years and therefore, the petitioner is entitled only to the monetary compensation and respondent No.3 was directed to calculate and make the payment of monetary compensation to the petitioner from the date of her entitlement till the date of payment is made after deducting the amount which was paid to her during the limited period, she was in service".

Per contra, no counter-affidavit has been filed. However, Mr. Aditya Raman, learned counsel for the respondents very fairly submits that if the petitioner files a fresh representation along with the required documents, the same shall be considered and a conscious decision shall be taken, in accordance with law and if the petitioner is found entitled for grant of monetary compensation as per the NCWA 9.5.0, the same shall be extended to her, within stipulated time as prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, without going into the merits of this case, the respondent No.3 is directed to consider the pending representation of the petitioner and pass a speaking order assigning valid and concrete reason for consideration /non-consideration of the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law and also taking into consideration the order/judgment of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No.2869 of 2009, with a copy of

order to the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Needless to say that if the petitioner is found entitled for the aforesaid due benefits, the same shall be extended to her within a further period of three weeks. If the case of petitioner is turned down for one or other reasons, same shall be communicated to him, within a further period of two weeks.

Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) /punit/