Jharkhand High Court
The Central Coalfields Limited vs Sunita Devi on 10 October, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:31340-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 42 of 2025
---
1. The Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Ranchi
2. The General Manager (P & IR), Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi
3. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi
4. The Project Officer, Dhori (K) Colliery, Central Coalfields Limited,
Dhori, Bokaro
5. The Chief General Manager, Dhori Area, Central Coalfields Limited,
Dhori, Bokaro
6. The General Manager, Dhori Area, Central Coalfields Limited, Dhori,
Bokaro
... ... Appellants
Versus
Sunita Devi, W/o Late Shibu Manjhi, R/o Village-Gabhar Mochro,
P.O.-Angwali, P.S.-Petarwar, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand
.... ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate
Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ramchander Sahu, Advocate
-----
Reserved on 24.09.2025 Pronounced on 10.10.2025
Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. :
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated
10.06.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6215 of 2015 whereby the learned
Single Judge has allowed the said writ petition directing the
respondents/appellants to release the monetary compensation in favour
of the petitioner/respondent with effect from 19.12.1996 i.e., the date
of death of her husband namely Shibu Majhi (hereinafter referred as
the deceased employee).
2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that
the deceased employee was working under the appellants as Piece
Rated worker at Dhori (K) Colliery and he died in harness on
2025:JHHC:31340-DB
19.12.1996. Thereafter, the respondent being the widow submitted an
application to the Project Officer, Dhori (K) Colliery, CCL, Bokaro-the
appellant no. 4 on 15.10.1998 requesting to appoint her on
compassionate ground, however the said application was rejected by
the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, Dhori Area vide Letter No.
GM(D)/PD/9.3.2/2002/639 dated 26/27.03.02 on the ground that she
had filed the said application after lapse of about two years from the
date of death of her husband whereas as per the Circular of the CCL,
the application for appointment on compassionate ground was required
to be filed within six months from the date of death of the deceased
employee.
3. Aggrieved with the decision of Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, Dhori
Area, the respondent filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3560 of 2008
before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 17.10.2011
with an observation that there was no error in rejecting the claim of the
respondent for compassionate appointment, however, if she applied for
getting benefit under Coal Mines Provident Fund in a prescribed format,
the same would be forwarded to the CMPF Authority to decide her
claim in accordance with law and rest of the claims would be paid by
the management in accordance with law, rules, regulations, policies
and government enforceable orders applicable to her.
4. Thereafter the respondent preferred appeal being L.P.A No. 91 of 2014
challenging the said order of the writ court which was disposed of by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.11.2014 with an
observation that in case of filing of the representation by the
respondent seeking monetary benefits in lieu of the compassionate
2025:JHHC:31340-DB
appointment, the same would be accorded consideration expeditiously;
preferably within six weeks.
5. The respondent thereafter, filed a representation before the Project
Officer, Dhori (K) Colliery, CCL on 29.12.2014 seeking monetary
compensation and vide order no. PD/MP/Monetary Benefit/2015/3133
dated 05.09.2015 issued by the CCL HQ, Darbhanga House, Ranchi an
amount of Rs. 15,712.62/- per month was awarded her as a monetary
compensation to be payable from first day of the next month i.e., with
effect from 01.01.2015.
6. The respondent filed another writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6215 of
2015 challenging the order dated 05.09.2015 to the extent of granting
her monetary compensation from the first day of the month following
the month in which she had submitted the application for the same. In
the said writ petition, it was contended by the respondent that the
monetary compensation should have been paid to her from the date of
death of her husband i.e., with effect from 19.12.1996. The said writ
petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order
dated 10.06.2024 granting monetary compensation to the respondent
from the date of death of her husband.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single
Judge has failed to consider that the concerned employee had died on
19.12.1996 whereas the application for monetary compensation was
filed by the respondent on 29.12.2014 and as such there was delay and
latches on the part of the respondent herself in making claim for
monetary compensation.
8. It is also submitted that the respondent cannot be allowed to take
2025:JHHC:31340-DB
undue advantage of prolonged delay in submitting application for grant
of monetary compensation in terms of Clause 9.5.0 of National Coal
Wage Agreement (NCWA)-VI.
9. It is further contended that the purpose of granting monetary
compensation to the dependent of the deceased employee is to provide
immediate financial assistance and therefore the respondent cannot be
allowed to take undue advantage in claiming monetary compensation
with effect from the date of death of her husband particularly when she
herself did not file the application immediately after his death.
10. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that
NCWA-VI clearly provides for granting compassionate appointment to
the dependent of the deceased employee and in the case where female
dependent is not offered such appointment, then she is entitled to be
paid the monetary compensation.
11. It is further submitted that while rejecting the claim of the respondent
for compassionate appointment, the appellants had not offered her
monetary compensation and as such the learned Single Judge has
rightly directed the appellants to make payment of monetary
compensation to the respondent from the date of death of her
husband. The impugned order being completely justified, needs no
interference of this Court.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
placed on record.
13. The short question that falls for consideration before this court is as to
whether under the present facts and circumstances, the learned Single
Judge is justified in granting monetary compensation to the respondent
2025:JHHC:31340-DB
from the date of death of her husband.
14. We have perused the relevant provisions of NCWA-VI, Clause 9.3.1 of
which provides for giving employment to one of the dependents of the
employees who have either become permanently disabled or have died
while in service. Clause 9.3.2 provides that in case of female
dependents, their employment/payment of monetary compensation
would be governed by Clause 9.5.0.
15. Clause 9.5.0 provides as follows: -
"9.5.0 Employment/Monetary compensation to
female dependant Provision of employment/
monetary compensation to female dependants of
workmen who die while in service and who are
declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 above
would be regulated as under:
(i) In case of death due to mine accident, the
female dependent would have the option to either
accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 4,000/- per
month or employment irrespective of her age.
(ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement
due to cause other than mine accident. and medical
unfitness under Clause 9.4.0., if the female
dependent is below the age of 45 years she will have
the option either to accept the monetary
compensation of Rs. 3,000/-per month or
employment.
In case the female dependent is above 45 years of
age she will be entitled only to monetary
compensation and not to employment.
(iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for
other reasons or medical unfitness under Clause
9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the
male dependent of the concerned worker is 12 years
and above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and
would be provided employment commensurate with
his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of
18 years. During the period the male dependent is on
live roster, the female dependent will be paid
monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii)
2025:JHHC:31340-DB
above. This will be effective from 1.1.2000.
(iv) Monetary compensation wherever applicable,
would be paid till the female dependent attains the
age of 60 years.
(v) The existing rate of monetary compensation
will continue. The matter will be further discussed in
the Standardisation Committee and finalised.
Note: In case of TISCO, the matter would be settled
at bipartite level."
16. Thus, Clause 9.5.0 clearly provides that in case of death/permanent
disablement of an employee due to mine accident, the female
dependent of any age has two options; either to seek compassionate
appointment or to accept monetary compensation of Rs. 4,000/- per
month. In case of death/permanent disablement of an employee due to
the cause other than mine accident, a female dependent below the age
of 45 years has two options; either to claim for compassionate
appointment or for monetary compensation of Rs. 3000/- per month.
However, if the female dependent is above the 45 years of age, she has
only one option i.e to claim for monetary compensation and not for
employment. It is further provided that the monetary compensation
wherever applicable, is to be paid to the female dependent till she
attains the age of 60 years.
17. The learned counsels for the parties in support of their respective
contentions have referred few judgments rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as this Court.
18. We have perused the judgment of Division Bench of this court rendered
in the case of Central Coalfields Limited Vs. Hira Devi reported in
2013 SCC OnLine Jhar 5. In the said case, the age of the widow of
the deceased employee was above 45 years and she had filed
application for compassionate appointment. Subsequently, she was
2025:JHHC:31340-DB
advised to file application for monetary benefit, however instead of
filing the application for monetary benefit, she filed writ petition which
was disposed of observing that the widow of the deceased employee
was entitled for monetary benefit from the date of his death. The
appeal filed by the Central Coalfields Limited against the order of the
writ court was decided by Division Bench of this Court observing as
under:-
"4. We considered the submission of learned
counsel for the appellant and perused the reasons
given in the judgment dated 17th October, 2011 as
well as the scheme. It appears from the totality of the
scheme that a dependent and particularly a female
dependent of the deceased employee is entitled to
two benefits, which are in alternate; one of
compassionate appointment and another of monetary
benefit. It appears that petitioner widow of the
employee was under impression that she can get the
compassionate appointment which appears to be
more beneficial to the petitioner, she applied for
compassionate appointment and she pursued her
remedy for compassionate appointment, even by
filing the writ petition in the year 2010. Therefore,
the petitioner, if under a wrong impression has
committed one wrong, it cannot be said that she was
not willing to take the alternate remedy, which is
lesser beneficial to the petitioner. Therefore, in the
facts of the case, we are of the view that if the
learned Single Judge has allowed the relief to the
petitioner for monetary benefit under the scheme, it
may be due to the reason of only conversion of the
application of seeking compassionate appointment to
an application for monetary benefit.
5. In view of above reasons, we are of the
considered opinion that there is no reason for
interference in the impugned judgment. However, the
petitioner shall be given all monetary benefit from
the date of application submitted for compassionate
appointment.
With this modification, this L.P.A is disposed of."
2025:JHHC:31340-DB
19. We have also perused the judgment of Division Bench of this court
rendered in the case of Gangia Devi Vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal
Ltd. & Others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Jhar 1133. In the said
case, initially the application for compassionate appointment was made
by the son of the deceased employee within six months from the date
of death of his father, however the said application was rejected.
Thereafter, the widow of the deceased employee filed an application for
monetary compensation which was kept pending by the authority. The
widow of the deceased, thereafter, filed writ petition which was
disposed by the Single Bench holding that she was entitled for
monetary compensation from the date of filing of the application for
the same. In appeal, Co-ordinate Bench of this court, looking to the
relevant provisions of NCWA-V held that since payment of the monetary
compensation was to be made on account of death of the concerned
employee, the cause of action for disbursement of monetary
compensation had to be from the date of his death. In that view of the
matter, the widow of the concerned employee was entitled to be paid
monetary compensation from the date of his death and not from the
date of submitting the application for getting the same.
20. We have also perused the judgment of Division Bench of this court
rendered in the case Putul Devi Vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal
Limited & Others reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Jhar 1156. In the
said case, the widowed daughter-in-law of the deceased employee had
filed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment, however the
said writ petition was dismissed with an observation that she was not
entitled for compassionate appointment but her case for monetary
2025:JHHC:31340-DB
compensation was required to be considered in the light of NCWA-V.
Thereafter, the authority rejected the claim of the widowed daughter-
in-law on the ground that she was not the wife of the deceased
employee. She again filed a writ petition which was dismissed
observing that she had failed to show any provision under which the
widowed daughter-in-law could get the monetary compensation.
21. The appeal against the order of the writ court was allowed with the
following observations: -
"5. A bare perusal of the Clause 9.3.2 clearly
shows that the female dependents are entitled to
their employment/payment of monetary
compensation as provided in para 9.5.0. female
dependents have been defined in Clause 9.3.3 and in
this Clause the widowed daughter-in-law has been
included specifically. For monetary compensation,
under Clause 9.5.0, which is provision for such
benefit to female dependents, there is no other
definition and there appears to be no reason for
ignoring widowed daughter-in-law, which has been
specifically mentioned in Clause 9.3.3 and, therefore,
the respondents proceeded under wrong assumption
that only the widow of the employee is entitled to
such benefit and before learned Single Judge,
relevant Clauses have not been placed, therefore, the
learned Single Judge in concurrence to the finding
recorded by the respondent authority rejected the
claim of the writ petitioner only on the ground that
appellant-writ petitioner is not the widow of the
deceased-employee.
6. The delay in payment of monetary
compensation to the appellant-writ petitioner is not
due to the fault of the appellant-writ petitioner and
even the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted her
representation for claim of monetary compensation in
the year 1996. The respondent-employer shall pay all
the monetary benefits to the appellant-writ petitioner
from the date of death of the deceased-employee.
However, in view of the long passing of time, the
2025:JHHC:31340-DB
monetary compensation shall be paid without any
interest and the respondent-employer shall continue
to pay the benefit up-to the period as prescribed in
the above provisions."
22. We have perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered
in the case of M/s Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. & Others Vs. Dukhni
Bhuiya (Civil Appeal No. 6730 of 2023). In the said case, an
employee of the Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. had died in harness on
14.09.1999 and the application for monetary compensation was filed by
the widow of the deceased employee in the year 2020. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court granted interim order dated 14.10.2022 directing the
ECL to pay the due amount under Clause 9.5.0 (i) of the NCWA as
amended up to date for the period commencing from three years prior
to the date of filing of the writ petition in the High Court till the date of
payment. Finally, Their Lordships disposed of the said appeal vide order
dated 13.10.2023 observing that in the peculiar facts of the case where
the respondent waited for almost 21 years before approaching the
Court by filing the writ petition seeking monetary compensation from
the appellant, the amount as directed to be paid by the interim order
dated 14.10.2022 was adequate to meet the ends of justice.
23. On conjoint consideration of the provisions of NCWA-VI as well as the
judgments cited by the learned counsels for the parties it is held that
when an application for compassionate appointment is made by a
female dependent within the prescribed period for filing of the same
and the said application is rejected, such female dependent will be
entitled to get monetary compensation from the date of death of the
employee. However, when the application for compassionate
appointment is made by a female dependent after the stipulated period
2025:JHHC:31340-DB
of six months but not after inordinate delay and her claim for
compassionate appointment is rejected, then she will be entitled to get
monetary compensation from the date of her application submitted for
compassionate appointment.
24. In the case in hand, admittedly the respondent was below 45 years of
age at the time of death of her husband and as such she had two
options i.e., either to apply for compassionate appointment or to seek
monetary compensation. The respondent had chosen to claim for
compassionate appointment which was rejected by the Dy. Chief
Personnel Manager, Dhori Area, CCL, Bokaro vide order dated
26/27.03.2002 on the ground that the same was not filed within the
prescribed period of six months from the date of death of her husband.
At the time of rejection of the representation of the respondent, the
appellants did not offer her monetary compensation. We are of the
view that since the claim of the respondent for appointment on
compassionate ground was rejected on the ground of delay in
submitting such application, she was entitled to be paid the monetary
compensation and as a model employer, the appellants should have
offered monetary compensation to her, however, they failed to do so.
The respondent having filed the application belatedly was neither
granted compassionate appointment nor any monetary compensation
to which she was entitled in terms of the provisions of NCWA-VI.
25. Thus, as per the entire scheme of the NCWA-VI, we are of the view
that the respondent cannot be given benefit for the delay on her part in
making the application for compassionate appointment and at the same
time the appellants also cannot be allowed to take benefit for their own
2025:JHHC:31340-DB
latches in not offering the monetary compensation to the respondent
while rejecting her claim for compassionate appointment.
26. For the reasons as discussed hereinabove, the respondent is entitled to
be paid the monetary compensation from the date she had filed
application seeking compassionate appointment i.e., with effect from
15.10.1998.
27. The impugned order dated 10.06.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6215 of
2015 is modified to the extent that the appellants shall be liable to pay
the monetary compensation to the respondent from 15.10.1998 i.e.,
the date when she had submitted the application seeking
compassionate appointment.
28. The present appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid
direction and observation.
29. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
10.10.2025
Vikas/ A.F.R.
