Jharkhand High Court
Manmati Kumari vs Central Coalfields Ltd. Through Its ... on 6 February, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5549 of 2023
1. Manmati Kumari, aged about 40 years, daughter of Late Banarasi Singh
2. Deep Narayan Sinh, aged about 32 years, son of Late Banarsi Singh
3. Shanti Devi, aged about 71 years, wife of Late Banarasi Singh
All are residents of MQ-250, Subhash Nagar, P.O. - Amlo, P.S.- Bermo,
District - Bokaro. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Central Coalfields Ltd. through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director,
having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S.-
Kotwali, District - Ranchi.
2. The Director (Personnel), CCL (Central Coalfields Ltd.) having its office
at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. - Kotwali, District -
Ranchi
3. The General Manager (P & IR), CCL (Central Coalfields Ltd.) having its
office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. - Kotwali, District
- Ranchi
4. The Project Officer, Kargali (OC-UG), Central Coalfields Ltd., P.O. &
P.S.- Bermo, District- Bokaro ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
---
05/06.02.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"(a) for issuance of a writ, order or direction, particularly a writ
in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon of the respondents
for disbursement of monetary compensation, from the date of
declaration of medical unfitness, in favour of the Petitioner No. 1,
who is the unmarried daughter of the workman Late Banarasi
Singh (father of Petitioner No. 1 and 2 and husband of Petitioner
No. 3) as per the provisions of the National Coal Wage
Agreement ('NCWA' in short).
AND/OR
(b) For the issuance of such other writ, order or direction as may
appear just and proper for doing conscionable justice to the
petitioner and in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the father
of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 namely, Banarasi Singh was declared
unfit by the respondent- authorities on 05.01.2013 and subsequently,
he expired on 31.10.2014. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner nos.
1 and 2 i.e. petitioner no. 3 endorsed the name of brother of the
petitioner no. 1 for appointment on compassionate ground which was
rejected by the respondents against which the brother i.e. petitioner no.
2 filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No. 1875 of
2016 which was allowed vide order dated 21.04.2017. The
respondents preferred appeal being LPA No. 521 of 2017 and the
appeal was allowed in their favour. He submits that consequently no
compassionate appointment was ultimately given to the brother of the
petitioner no. 1.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in
case where an employee is declared medically unfit or expires while in
service, the female dependent is entitled for monetary compensation.
He submits that the monetary compensation ought to have been paid
by the respondents themselves but the same has not been paid. He
submits that the mother of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 is alive, who is
the co-petitioner in the present case being petitioner no. 3.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that a
representation was filed by the petitioner no. 1 before the respondent
no. 3 vide letter sent through post on 09.08.2023 as contained in
Annexure- 5 to the writ petition, but no decision having been taken,
the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking a mandamus
upon the respondents.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while
opposing the prayer, has submitted that the petitioners have rushed to
this Court by filing the writ petition on 21.09.2023 though the
representation was sent through post only on 09.08.2023. However, he
submits that there is no reason for not passing an appropriate order on
the representation filed by the petitioner no. 1. He also submits that
the writ petition be disposed of, so that the petitioners may once again
approach the respondent no. 3 for passing appropriate order.
7. This court finds that no counter-affidavit has been filed in the
present case and no such order for filing of the counter-affidavit has
also been passed by this Court so far. The facts narrated by the
petitioners are based on materials available on record.
8. Considering the nature of relief sought for by the petitioners,
this Court finds that the parties were on litigating terms due to the
claim of compassionate appointment by the petitioner no.2 which has
been subsequently set at rest as stated by the petitioners and ultimately
the petitioner no. 1 has filed a representation before the respondent no.
3 for seeking monetary benefit which the petitioners claim to be
payable in terms of National Coal Wage Agreement.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ
petition is disposed of enabling the petitioners to file a fresh
representation before the respondent no. 3 along with a copy of this
order and a copy of the writ records within a period of 15 days from
today. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent no. 3 is
directed to look into the grievance of the petitioners and pass
appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of the representation.
10. The respondent no. 3 shall also take into consideration the
applicable rules/guidelines etc and also various orders passed by this
court which have been annexed along with the writ petition and/or any
other judgment/order which may be produced by the parties. This
court has not gone into the merits or otherwise regarding the claim of
the petitioners.
11. If the petitioners are found entitled for monetary compensation
by virtue of the reasoned order, the respondent no. 3 is directed to take
all steps so that the amount of monetary compensation is duly remitted
as per law within a period of one month from the date of the reasoned
order. The reasoned order be also communicated to the petitioners
through speed post.
12. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
