Smt. Oram Bhagyamma vs M/S Singareni Collieries Company ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4414 Tel

       HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

           WRIT PETITION No.6005 OF 2014

ORDER:

Heard the counsel for the petitioners.

2. Heard the counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioners approached this Court seeking to

issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the

respondent company in considering the case of the

petitioners for compassionate appointment and in releasing

terminal benefits of late Sri Oram Shyam Rao who was

working in the respondent company and declared as dead

as per the judgment of a competent civil Court in spite of

making representations on 23.11.2010 and 2.1.2013 as

being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. The short grievance of the petitioners is that the 1st

petitioner is the husband of deceased Oram Shyam Rao

who was appointed in the respondent company on

24.10.1987 as a Floating Badli Filler and blessed a son i.e.

2nd petitioner herein. On 8.8.1990 the husband of the 1st

petitioner went away and his whereabouts are not known

and the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Mancherial vide OS No. 890 of 2005 declared that her

husband is died by its judgment and decree dated

18.1.2010. On 23.11.2010 the 2nd petitioner made

representation to the 3rd respondent seeking

compassionate appointment and also to grant pay terminal

benefits. The respondents issued a letter dated 30.01.2012

informing that since there is no specific direction to the

defendant in O.S.No.890 of 2005, company can take a

decision as per the rules in vogue. The petitioner's prayed

for allowing of the writ petition as prayed for.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents

stating that there is no violation of statutory rule or

regulation or rule having any statutory force by the

respondents to attract the provisions of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India for exercising the original jurisdiction

of this Court and the petition is not maintainable in law

and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The contention of

the petitioner that her husband after taking salary went

away and since then his whereabouts are not known, if it

is true the petitioner should have communicated about the

same to the authorities of respondent company and

should have booked a complaint with local police and given

a notice in Telugu daily. No communication was given by

the petitioner to the respondent company. The provision of

dependant employment in respondent company is

applicable when any employee dies while in service or is

declared medically unfit by Colliery Medical Board. In the

present case the worker was temporarily empanelled and

keeping his performance and attendance he was dis-

empanelled on 1.3.1993 and in such cases the provisions

of dependant employment do not apply. With regard to

terminal benefits, the Coal Mines Provident Fund refund

claim will be settled by the Regional Commissioner, CMPF,

Godavari Khani which is a separate Central Government

agency and not under the administrative control of the

respondents and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. Without going into the merits of the case, taking into

consideration the fact that the petitioners' representation

dated 02.01.2013 has not been considered by the

respondents till as on date, the respondents are directed to

consider the petitioners' representation dated 02.01.2013,

for release of terminal benefits of petitioners deceased

husband Oram Shyam Rao and also to consider the

petitioners representation/application dated 02.01.2013

for providing job to petitioner's son on dependent basis as

per the rules in force, in accordance with law within a

period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy

of the order duly communicating the said decision to the

petitioner. The petitioner is also directed to furnish the

copy of the representation dated 02.01.2013 to the

respondents along with the copy of the present order for

consideration of petitioners representation dated

02.01.2013.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ

petition, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

06th September, 2022 Skj

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRIT PETITION No.6005 OF 2014

06th September, 2022

skj