Sunita Devi vs Central Coalfields Ltd. And Ors

Heard Mr. Kumar Harsh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Central Coalfields

Limited.

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising

due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been

heard on merit.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 21/23.09.2017. The prayer for payment of monetary compensation in

terms of National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) is also made in the writ petition.

It has been averred in the writ petition that the husband of the petitioner Prahlad Kumar was under the employment of the respondent-CCL in the

capacity of Driller, Category-IV, Kargali (UG), B & K Area. The husband of the petitioner died in harness on 02.08.2000 and accordingly death-cum-

family certificate was issued by the Block Development Officer, Bermo, Bokaro. The name of the husband of the petitioner was struck off from the

roll of the Kargali UG Project w.e.f. the date of his death vide order dated 18.08.2000. The petitioner applied for her compassionate appointment in

place of her deceased husband by way of filing an application on 26.09.2001. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Aggrieved with the

rejection, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

Mr. Harsh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on foreign reasons, the case of the petitioner has been rejected. He further submits that

the petitioner is legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and she is entitled for compassionate appointment. He further submits that in terms of

NCWA, if compassionate appointment is not being provided, the dependent is entitled for monetary compensation. He also submits that the case of the

petitioner is fully covered in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Most. Kaushalya Devi v. Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.,

reported in 2005 (3) JLJR 160. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is fit to be allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court in the

case of Surthi Devi v. Central Coalfields Limited in W.P. (S) No. 4758 of 2017 . He also submits that the case of the petitioner is also fit to be

considered in view of the order passed in the case of G.L. Bhatia v. Union of India and another, reported in (1999) 5 SCC 237. He refers paragraph 5

of that judgment. So far as monetary compensation is concerned, he relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Gangia Devi v. M/s Bharat Coking

Coal Ltd. and others in L.P.A. No. 657 of 2018. On these grounds, he submits that the case of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected by the

respondents and, therefore, this Court may interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL submits that the petitioner is not legally wedded wife of the deceased employee.

He further submits that the mother of the deceased employee has filed an application for appointment for his second son on compassionate ground.

He also submits that pursuant to the order dated 11.03.2019 passed in this case, the respondent-CCL has filed the supplementary counter affidavit. He

draws attention of the Court to Annexure-A of the supplementary counter affidavit, which is the service book of the deceased employee and submits

that the name of the petitioner has not been disclosed in the service book and only the names of mother, brother and sister have been disclosed

therein. He further submits that in view of the notification with regard to payment of gratuity, the name of the petitioner is also not there, contained in

Annexure-B of the supplementary counter affidavit. He further refers to Annexure-C of the supplementary counter affidavit, which is Form-A-

application for member of employees benevolent/relief fund scheme and submits that the name of the petitioner does not find figure therein. He

further refers to Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, contained in Annexure-D of the supplementary counter affidavit and submits that the name of

the petitioner is also not there. He also took the Court to Annexure-E of the supplementary counter affidavit, which is the document of Coal Mines

Provident Fund, wherein, the name of the petitioner is also not disclosed. He also refers to Annexure-F of the supplementary counter affidavit and

submits that the case of the petitioner was not processed in view of the fact that the matter was examined by the respondent-CCL and it was found

that mother of the deceased employee has also applied for employment of her second son and that is why the case of the petitioner was not

processed. He relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Miss Kiran Kumari v. Central Coalfields Ltd. and others, in W.P.(S) No. 2912 of

2010 which was dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2018 and submits that the fact of that case is identical to present case and in that view of the

matter, this writ petition is fit to be dismissed. He further submits that the said Miss Kiran Kumari's case was carried before the Division Bench of this

Court in L.P.A. No. 229 of 2018 and considering the fact that the name of that appellant was not appearing in any of the record of the respondent-

CCL, the order of the learned Single Judge has been confirmed. However, the Division Bench in clear terms has held in paragraph 17 that the writ of

certiorari can only be issued in exercise of power conferred to High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if there is any perversity in

the finding or there is jurisdictional error or the order is contrary to the statutory provision. It has also been held by the Division Bench of this Court

that such case can be considered only if succession certificate is produced before the respondent-CCL.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. It is an admitted position that there is no

document to suggest that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. The documents annexed with the supplementary counter

affidavit, which have been taken note by the Court in the submission of Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha and on perusal of those documents, it transpires that

the name of the petitioner is not figured in those documents. The onus lies on the part of the petitioner to prove before the respondent-CCL that she is

the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee.

In the judgment relied by Mr. Harsh, learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Most. Kaushalya Devi (supra), the mother-in-law of that

petitioner has sworn an affidavit to the effect that the petitioner of that case is the legally married wife and in that view of the matter, that order was

passed by this Court.

In the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of G.L. Bhatia (supra), the dispute with regard to legally wedded wife

was not there. It was an admitted position in that case that the petitioner was legally wedded wife and there was no divorce between the husband and

wife, even though they might be staying separately and in that view of the matter, that order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This fact is

not in the case in hand. Thus, the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not helping the petitioner.

In the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Surthi Devi (supra), the respondent-CCL has not taken any decision

on the application of that petitioner for compassionate appointment and that is why that order was passed in the said petition. The fact of that case is

different to the present case.

So far as the judgment in the case of Gangia Devi (supra) is concerned, the fact in that case was different and the case of that petitioner was

considered for monetary compensation from the date of death of deceased employee. The dispute of legality of marriage was not there in that case.

Thus, that judgment is also not helping the petitioner.

In view of the above discussions and considering the fact that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate about the legality of the marriage,

which is also not on the record of the respondent-CCL as discussed above and also considering the fact that the judgments relied by the learned

counsel for the petitioner is on different footing and also considering the fact that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A.

No. 229 of 2018 in the case of Miss Kiran Kumari (supra) is favouring the respondent-CCL, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.