Supreme CourtFull Bench

Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. vs Ruda Devi & Ors

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 17 July 2020 · Citation: (2020) 07 SC CK 0011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J · Indu Malhotra, J · K.M. Joseph, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 108
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 8963 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 414 words
1.

Application seeking amendment in the Special Leave Petition is allowed and permission to file an amended copy of the Special Leave Petition is

granted.

2.

The facts of the present case, as indicated in the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, are that the the police on investigation

found that the deceased employee (whose legal heirs are the respondents) had been abducted and murdered. FIR No 21/2019 was lodged on 3 July

1999. The dead body was not found. The Superintendent of Police, Purulia, by a letter dated 28 October 1999 informed the General Manager of

Bharat Coking Coal Limited that the principal accused and his associates were absconding and evading arrest. In the course of the investigation, the

apparel worn by the deceased employee was seized. The police opined that the dead body may have been concealed in the riverbed of the Damodar

river. It was in these circumstances that the learned Single Judge applied the presumption that arises under the provisions of Section 108 of the

Evidence Act 1872. Finding that the case for compassionate appointment was within the purview of Clause 9.4.2 of the National Coal Wage

Agreement III, the Single judge granted relief.

3.

There was a delay of six years in filing a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge by which the petitioners were directed to

grant compassionate appointment. On the facts of the case, as they have emerged before this Court, we are of the view that the directions of the

learned Single Judge were eminently fair and consistent with law.

4.

We see no reason to entertain the Special Leave Petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, since the family of the deceased has been

made to run from pillar to post for twenty years after his death, we are of the view that an order for payment of costs to the respondent would be

warranted. We accordingly direct that the petitioner shall comply with the order of the learned Single Judge, within a period of one month from today.

The petitioner shall also pay costs quantified at Rs 2 lakhs to the widow of the deceased.

5.

A report of compliance shall be filed within a period of six weeks from today before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, failing which the

proceedings shall be listed for further directions before the Court.

6.

The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.

7.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.