Jharkhand High Court
Mina Devi @ Meena Devi vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through Its ... on 23 September, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:29496
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No.1138 of 2025
-----
Mina Devi @ Meena Devi, w/o late Ambedkar Prasad, R/o Kanta
Pahari, Angarpathra, PO and PS Kathrasgarh, District Dhanbad
... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Managing Director,
having its registered place of business at RF52+FF6, near State
Bank of India, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, PO and PS Koyla
Nagar, District Dhanbad
2.Regional Manager (Personnel), Katra Area, Bharat Coking
Coal Limited, officiating from his office at O/o General Manager,
Katras Area, Nagri Kalan, PO and PS Nagri Kalan, District
Dhanbad ... Respondent(s).
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
.........
03 /23.09.2025: Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed to quash the
Memo No. 2025/1446 dated 06.02.2025 wherein the claim of the
petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been
rejected on the ground that civil death is not covered and does not
apply for grant for compassionate appointment under the National
Coal Wage Agreement. He further prays for a direction upon the
respondents for granting compassionate appointment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that death
cannot be differentiated. The civil death is also a death recognized
by law, thus the respondents are bound to consider the case of the
petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. He further
submits that the workman went missing from 30.08.2010 and there
is a decree passed by the competent Court declaring him dead in
terms of section 108 of the Evidence Act. Once the father-in-law of
the petitioner is declared to be dead, the respondents are bound to
consider the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner
without differentiating the nature of the death.
2025:JHHC:29496
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bharat Coking
Coal Limited submits that father-in-law of the petitioner went
missing on 30.08.2010 and his date of superannuation was in the
year 2013. The suit being Original Suit No. 260 of 2018 was
decided on 23.12.2022 wherein the date of death of the father-in-
law was declared. Such declaration is much after the date of
superannuation of the father-in-law of the petitioner. When the date
of death is after the date of superannuation, it cannot be said to be
a case of death in harness to attract compassionate appointment in
terms of National Coal Wage Agreement. He fairly admits that there
are judgments of this Court which has held that civil death is also a
death and is covered under the National Coal Wage Agreement for
grant of compassionate appointment but in this case so far as the
other aspects are concerned the petitioner's claim cannot succeed.
5. Admittedly the father-in-law of this petitioner was working in
Bharat Coking Coal Limited as a Fitter. He went missing on
30.08.2010. He was not heard thereafter. The petitioner filed a suit
which was registered as Original Suit No. 260 of 2018 claiming for
a declaration of civil death of Devendra Prasad in terms of section
108 of the Evidence Act. The suit was heard and the Civil Judge,
Junior Division-II at Dhanbad by judgment dated 23.12.2022
decreed the suit holding that the father-in-law of this petitioner,
namely, Devendra Prasad has not been heard for more than 7
years since the cause of action to file the suit arose. He was
declared dead in the light of section 108 of the Evidence Act. The
court concerned has held that Devendra Prasad is presumed to be
dead on 30.08.2010. This date is of utmost important as it is on this
date he went missing. The trial Court here committing an error in
giving declaration that Devendra Prasad died on 30.08.2010.
Though the judgment in the said suit is not challenged before this
Court, but the illegality committed cannot be overlooked. In terms of
section 108 of the Evidence Act he shall be declared dead after 7
years from the date he was last seen. In the instant case recording
the date after 7 years, the same would be 30.08.2017. Thus the
2025:JHHC:29496
date of death which can be taken is 30.08.2017 and not the date of
missing.
6. In this case admittedly the father-in-law of the petitioner
was supposed to retire on 2013. He went missing three years prior
to his actual date of superannuation. The compassionate
appointment is granted on death of the employee and, that too, if
the death is in harness. The actual date of retirement in the instant
case is within 7 years from the day of missing of the father-in-law of
the petitioner.
7. A Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 13 of 2009 titled
"Renu Devi vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and Others" while deciding
the case vide order dated 26.03.2009 in paragraph no. 6 has held
that the claim of compassionate appointment would accrue only
after expiry of 7 years of his missing and prior to expiry of the
period the husband/employee cannot be presumed to be dead.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment presumption of date of civil
death is 7 years after the person was last seen or last heard.
8. In view of the aforesaid judgment the declaration of the
Court that workman is presumed to be dead on 30.08.2010 is bad.
9. In this case the petitioner went missing on 30.08.2010 and
he was supposed to superannuat in the year 2013 i.e. within 3
years. Since the claim of compassionate appointment of the
petitioner would accrue only after expiry of 7 years of missing of the
employee, it cannot be said that the employee died in harness. It is
necessary to quote paragraph no. 6 of the aforesaid judgment:
"Having heard the counsel for the parties in the light of the
facts stated hereinabove, we are of the view that the
petitioner's husband had only one year of service left prior to
his superannuation during which he was found missing and
therefore, after expiry of the period of one year, the
petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment of her son
in place of her husband could not be legally sustained, as the
claim of compassionate appointment could accrue only after
expiry of the period of 7 years of his missing and prior to the
expiry of that period, the petitioner's husband/employee could
not be presumed to be dead. It is worth reiterating that the
petitioner's husband during this period also reached the age
2025:JHHC:29496
of superannuation and therefore, only after a period of one
year of his disappearance, he ceased to be in service. In that
view of the matter, when the petitioner claimed appointment
of her son on compassionate ground in place of her missing
husband, the cause of action no longer survives as her
husband was no longer in service and therefore, the claim of
compassionate appointment on the ground of presumption of
death of her husband after 7 years of his disappearance
cannot be sustained."
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that what has
been stated in the counter affidavit was not the ground taken in the
rejection order but in my view even if the ground is not therein the
impugned order but after proper application of mind if it is found
that beyond the said ground if there are other grounds to deny the
relief as sought for, the Court can very well pass order rejecting the
relief.
11. Thus, considering what has been held above, I am of the
view that the date of death of the father-in-law of the petitioner is
much after the date of superannuation of the workman. Thus, she is
not entitled for any relief as sought for in this application which is
for grant of compassionate appointment.
12. So far as grant of death-cum-retiral benefits of late
Devendra Prasad is concerned, if the respondents as on date has
not disbursed the same, the same should be disbursed to the
surviving legal heirs after proper verification. The payment should
be made within 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of
this order.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Tanuj/CP-2
