Jharkhand High Court
Piyaria Devi vs Central Coalfields Limited Through Its ... on 5 June, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:14495-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 697 of 2023
---
Piyaria Devi, wife of Bhagaw, resident of Village- Field Quari,
Subhash Nagar, P.O.- Amlo, P.S.- Bermo, District- Bokaro
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi
2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Ltd., Darbhanga
House, Ranchi
3. The General Manager (P&IR), Central Coalfields Ltd.,
Darbhanga House, Ranchi
4. The Project Officer, Central Coalfields Ltd. Kargali Washery,
Bermo, P.O.- Bermo, District- Bokaro
.... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate
Miss Tejaswa Mohanta, Advocate
Miss Khusboo Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, Advocate
Mrs. Pinky Saw, Advocate
---
Reserved on 08.05.2025 Pronounced on 05.06.2025
Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. :
The present appeal is directed against the order/judgment
dated 22.08.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1138 of 2021 whereby writ
petition filed by the petitioner/appellant claiming compassionate
appointment, monetary compensation and death-cum-retiral
benefits as per National Coal Wage Agreement-VI (in short, "NCWA-
VI") in lieu of civil death of her husband as well as challenging
termination order of her husband dated 20.07.1989, has been
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches in preferring the suit in
the year 2012 for declaration of civil death of her husband and in
filing the writ petition.
2. In course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant has
waived the claim for compassionate appointment and has confined
2025:JHHC:14495-DB
his argument with respect to the payment of monetary benefit to
the appellant as per NCWA-VI as well as death-cum-retiral benefits
of her husband whose civil death has been declared in terms with
the judgment dated 22.04.2017 (decree dated 02.05.2017) passed
in Title Suit No. 01 of 2012.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
appellant is the widow of late Bhagaw who was working as a P/R
worker in Kargali Washery, Central Coalfields Limited (CCL). Her
husband was missing since 17.10.1988 while he was on duty and the
said information was given to the management of the CCL. The
appellant and her family members tried to search and waited for him
till 25.10.1988, but he did not return. Thereafter, the appellant
informed Bermo Police and also gave a written report about missing
of her husband.
4. It has further been submitted that the management of the CCL
initiated an enquiry against the appellant's husband for his long
unauthorized absence and a chargesheet was issued against him
vide letter dated 30.03.1989 as well as an enquiry committee was
constituted to look into the matter. The enquiry officer submitted his
report to the Project Officer, Kargali Washery (the respondent no. 4)
vide letter dated 26.05.1989 stating that the charge of unauthorized
absence against the appellant's husband was proved beyond doubt
and on the basis of the said report, the service of her husband was
terminated with immediate effect vide office order dated 20.07.1989.
5. It has also been contended that the appellant sought
declaration of civil death of her husband by filing Title Suit No. 01 of
2012 before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bermo at
2025:JHHC:14495-DB
Tenughat and the said suit was allowed in her favour vide judgment
dated 22.04.2017 and decree dated 02.05.2017 whereby declaration
was made to the effect that her husband had attained his civil death.
Thereafter, the appellant, vide letter dated 14.11.2017, made an
application before the respondent no.4 for providing her
compassionate appointment and death benefits, however the same
was rejected by the said respondent vide letter dated 16.05.2019 on
the ground that there was no provision under NCWA-VI for providing
employment to the dependent of an employee who had already
been dismissed/terminated from service on being civil dead. The
appellant thereafter, filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1138 of
2021 with following prayers: -
(i) For quashing the order dated 16.05.2019 whereby
and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment has been rejected.
(ii) For commanding upon the respondents to appoint
the petitioner on compassionate ground in pursuance
of the relevant clauses of the NCWA.
(iii) For quashing the order of termination dated
20.07.1989 whereby the husband of the petitioner has
been terminated on the ground of unauthorized
absence.
(iv) For issuance of direction upon the respondents for
payment of monetary compensation in terms of
relevant clauses of the NCWA as well as death cum
retiral dues to the petitioner.
6. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single
2025:JHHC:14495-DB
Judge vide judgment/order dated 22.08.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No.
1138 of 2021 observing inter alia that there was a considerable
delay and laches on the part of the appellant and though the suit
was preferred in the year 2012, yet there was no explanation with
respect to the delay caused between the year 1989 when the
services of the husband of the appellant was terminated and the
year 2012 when the suit was preferred by the appellant seeking
declaration of civil death of her husband.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the
learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that after declaration of
civil death of the appellant's husband, the order of his termination
pursuant to a departmental enquiry report submitted by the enquiry
officer for the alleged unauthorized absence, is meaningless and
non est in the eye of law. Moreover, the order of termination passed
in the ex-parte departmental proceeding will also be of no legal
consequence as the proceeding against a dead person could not
have been initiated or continued.
8. It has also been contended that the learned Single Judge failed
to take into consideration that the appellant could have been entitled
to make a legal claim for monetary benefit under relevant clauses of
NCWA-VI only after declaration of civil death of her husband. The
issue of limitation was not raised by the respondent-CCL before the
Civil Court though the said issue was formulated in the suit, however
the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the point of
belated claim ignoring the said aspect.
9. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL has
submitted that the husband of the appellant was terminated from
2025:JHHC:14495-DB
service w.e.f. 20.07.1989 due to unauthorized absence from duty
and after 23 years of the said termination, a suit was filed in the
year 2012 seeking declaration of his civil death and as such, the
learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the
appellant on the ground of delay and laches.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials available on record.
11. The main argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that
since a competent civil court has declared civil death of the
appellant's husband, she is at least entitled to the monetary
compensation in terms with the relevant provisions of the NCWA-IV.
12. Though the factum of declaration of civil death of the
appellant's husband has not been denied by the respondent-CCL, yet
it has rejected her claim of monetary compensation on the ground
that before declaration of civil death, the appellant's husband was
already terminated from service due to unauthorized absence and as
such, there was no question of grant of monetary compensation to
her.
13. On bare perusal of the record of the case, it appears that the
husband of the appellant was missing since 18.10.1988 and the
information to that effect was given to the management of
respondent-CCL as well as to the police, however an ex-parte
departmental proceeding for unauthorized absence was initiated
against him and was finally terminated from service. A suit being
Title Suit No. 01 of 2012 filed by the appellant was decreed in her
favour and her husband was declared civil dead, however the
management of CCL rejected the claim of the appellant for
2025:JHHC:14495-DB
compassionate appointment and monetary compensation on the
ground that there was no provision in the NCWA-VI to provide
appointment to the dependent of an employee who was
dismissed/terminated from service prior to declaring as civil dead.
14. We are of the considered view that since the husband of the
appellant was missing since 18.10.1988, his termination from service
on the ground of unauthorized absence that too in an exparte
departmental proceeding was bad in law. Moreover, subsequently
her husband was declared civil dead by a competent court of law.
The termination of an employee for unauthorized absence can only
be done if it is found that he is avoiding the duty without taking
permission from the competent authority, however if the employee
himself was missing, the question of taking permission by him for his
absence did not arise.
15. So far the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single
Judge on the ground of delay and laches is concerned, we have
perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the
case of Dharnidhar Mishra (D) and Another Vs. State of Bihar
& Others reported in (2024) 10 SCC 605 wherein it has been
held that the issue of delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of
a continuing cause of action or if the circumstances shock the
judicial conscience of the court. The condonation of delay is a matter
of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and
reasonably in the facts and circumstances of the case. It has further
been held that there is no period of limitation prescribed for the writ
courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial
justice.
2025:JHHC:14495-DB
16. Thus, there is no rigid rule to reject every writ petition which is
filed belatedly, rather each case should be dealt with looking to its
facts and circumstances. If the circumstances of a case shock the
judicial conscience of the writ court, it may exercise discretionary
power under the plenary jurisdiction to do the substantial justice.
17. In the case in hand, we are of the view that the termination of
the appellant's husband from service on the ground of his
unauthorized absence was itself bad in law and as such, the learned
Single Judge was not right in dismissing the writ petition on the
ground of delay and laches.
18. Consequently, order/judgment dated 22.08.2023 passed in
W.P.(S) No. 1138 of 2021 is set aside. The termination order of the
appellant's husband dated 20.07.1989 is also quashed. The
respondent-CCL is accordingly directed to pay the monetary
compensation as well as death-cum-retiral benefit of the deceased
employee to the appellant as per relevant provisions of NCWA-VI
within four weeks from the date of this order.
19. The present appeal is accordingly allowed with aforesaid
observation and direction.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
A.F.R.
Ritesh/
