[ad_1]
Calcutta High Court
Smt Ramparai @ Ramparia Bhuia And Anr vs Eastern Coalfields Limited And Ors on 10 July, 2025
Author: Aniruddha Roy
Bench: Aniruddha Roy
2025:CHC-OS:116
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
WPO/1177/2024
SMT RAMPARAI @ RAMPARIA BHUIA AND ANR
VS
EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS.
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
For the petitioners : :Mr. Partha Ghosh, Advocate
:Mr. Amal Kumar Datta, Advocate
:Ms. Simran Sureka, Advocate
:Mr. Debashis Das, Advocate
:Mr. Bratin Suin, Advocate
For the State respondent: :Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, Advocate
:Mr. Subhasri Chatterjee, Advocate
Heard on : July 10, 2025.
Judgment on : July 10, 2025.
ANIRUDDHA ROY,J. :
1. The petitioner No. 1 is the widow of one Krishna Bhuia, since deceased,
who was an employee of the relevant coal company. The deceased
employee has suffered an untimely death during his employment tenure
on April 18, 2013. The death certificate is annexure P1 at page 34 to the
writ petition.
2
2025:CHC-OS:116
2. After the death of the employee, the first petitioner applied for
compassionate employment and compensation under the relevant Coal
Agreement (NCWA) Scheme. No step has been taken by the Coal
Company.
3. The first petitioner then applied for compassionate employment for the
second petitioner and/or monetary compensation under the said NCWA
scheme on August 13, 2024, annexure P6 at page 46 to the writ petition.
The same is still pending for consideration before the Coal Company. At
this juncture, the instant writ petition has been filed on or about
December 10, 2024.
4. Prayer(a) to the writ petition shows that the petitioners’ claim alternative
reliefs either compassionate appointment or monetary compensation.
The rest are consequential prayers.
5. Mr. Ghosh relying upon a decision of this Court dated May 20, 2025 In
the matter of Maya Bouri Vs. M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.
rendered in WPO/33/2025 submits that, law is now well settled that it
is the obligation of the Coal Company to pay monetary compensation
payable to the petitioner in accordance with law.
6. This Court has been informed that till date no appeal has been preferred
from the said Judgement of this Court dated May 20, 2025.
7. The document at page 46 to the writ petitioner shows that application for
monetary compensation was filed by the petitioner on August 13, 2024.
Thereafter the instant writ petition has been filed in December 2024
3
2025:CHC-OS:116
about after four months from the said application dated August 13,
2024.
8. Learned Counsel Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya appearing for ECL
submits that the employee died on April 18, 2013 and the claim on
account of compassionate appointment and/or monetary compensation
was submitted on August 13, 2024 after about eleven years. There is no
question of granting any compassionate appointment in the facts of this
case. Referring to pages 35 & 35A from the writ petition, learned Counsel
for Coal Company, on instruction, submits that those documents were
not received by ECL. Even if, those documents were, for argument sake,
are accepted to have been received then also the petitioner did not
pursue their right or claim before 2024.
9. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and upon perusal of
materials on record, it appears to this Court that, family of the deceased
employee could survive since April 2013 when the employee died till
2024 when the petitioners submitted their applications for employment
and/or monetary compensation and then in December 2024 filed the
instant writ petition. Since the family could survive for eleven years after
the demise of the employee, there was no immediate requirement of
earning immediately after the death of the employee for survival of the
family and the family has survived so long. Compassionate appointment
is not a matter of right but a benevolent policy of the employer/State.
The law is well settled that for immediate survival of the family
4
2025:CHC-OS:116
immediately after the death of the employee such appointment is
provided for.
10. In view of the settled provisions of law, as above, the petitioners are not
eligible to receive any compassionate employment. Therefore, the prayer
for compassionate employment stands rejected.
11. In view of the reasons and the ratio In the matter of: Maya Bouri,
(supra), the appropriate authority of the respondent Coal India Ltd. is
directed to quantify the monetary compensation payable to the petitioner
strictly in accordance with law and upon compliance of all formalities
and legal requirements and also upon furnishing required documents
and records by the petitioners, shall release and pay the monetary
compensation to the petitioners positively within a period of Three
Months from the date of communication of this order. The relevant date
for the purpose of quantification of compensation should be the Date of
Death of the employee concerned.
12. It is further made clear that grant of interest on compensation is the
discretion of the Court. Records show that since the death of the
employee till 2024, the petitioners did not pursue their right. Assuming
though not admitting, as submitted by the Coal Company, that the
representation at pages 35 and 35A were submitted, even then the
petitioners after eleven years woke up and lodged their claim in 2024.
Such facts does not entitle the petitioners’ claim for interest. Therefore
prayer for interest also stands rejected.
5
2025:CHC-OS:116
13. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition being WPO
1177 of 2024 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.
(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)
GH/NM.
[ad_2]
Source link