Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Premlata Singh & Ors on 30 July, 2025
1
2025:CHC-AS:1436-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
&
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE
FMA 1033 of 2023
IA No. CAN 1 of 2023
EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD.
Vs.
PREMLATA SINGH & ORS.
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Mr. Manik Das, Adv.
For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Gobinda Kar, Adv.
Heard On : 30.07.2025
Judgment On : 30.07.2025
Sujoy Paul, J.:
1. This intra court appeal assails the order passed by the learned Single
Judge in WPA No. 18401 of 2022 whereby it is directed that the monthly
monetary cash compensation (compensation) be given to the petitioner
on monthly basis on and from July 10, 2023. The arrears of
compensation be provided to her from May 21, 2007, the next day of
death of her husband till June 20, 2023. A period of 4 months was fixed
for the purpose of grant of said benefits.
2
2025:CHC-AS:1436-DB
2. The learned counsel for the Coal Fields fairly submits that in view of
provision contained in National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), the
petitioner being widow is certainly entitled to get the compensation.
Thus, he fairly submitted that the entitlement of petitioner to get the
compensation is not called in question by the employer. The only ground
on which the order impugned is called in question is the delay in filing
the application for grant of compensation before the employer and also
the delay in approaching this Court. Because of the delay on the part of
the widow, she is not entitled to get the benefit of arrears of
compensation.
3. To elaborate, learned counsel for the employer submits that the first
application was filed by the widow for grant of monetary compensation in
the year 2013. Thereafter she filed the instant writ petition on
21.11.2022. By placing heavy reliance on the order of Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No. 6730 of 2023 (M/S. Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. & Ors.
vs. Dukhni Bhuiya), the counsel for employer submits that because of
delay, the widow is entitled to get the arrears backwards for 3 years only
prior to the date of filing of writ petition. In view of this order of Supreme
Court, at best, petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the arrears from
a date before 3 years from date of filing of instant WPA no. 18401 of
2022. To this extent, interference is warranted by this Court.
4. Next limb of argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the
first representation for compensation was actually preferred in 2013. In
this representation, there is no mentioned that widow earlier preferred
3
2025:CHC-AS:1436-DB
any such application. Thus, this indicates that previous applications
filed on 10.7.2008 and 14.09.2009 are fabricated and forged documents.
These documents, by no stretch of imagination can form basis to hold
that widow promptly approached the authorities for grant of benefits. In
other words, these forged letters allegedly preferred on 10.07.2008 and
14.09.2009 cannot justify the delay on the part of the widow. Thus,
following the view taken in Dukhni Bhuiya (Supra). The arrears may be
restricted.
5. The learned counsel for the widow supported the impugned order and
contended that the husband of petitioner died on 20.05.2007.
Applications for compassionate appointment was promptly preferred on
10.07.2008 Annexure ‘P-7’ followed by reminder dated 14.09.2009. The
employer sat tight over the matter till 06.09.2017 Annexure ‘P-6’ when
the representation was rejected. The widow promptly filed an application
dated 03.09.2017 seeking review of the decision rejecting the claim of the
widow for compassionate appointment. However, her prayer seeking
review could not fetch any result.
6. The document dated 08.06.2020 Annexure ‘P-8’ is referred to show that
certain documents were desired from the widow for the purpose of
considering her for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the
petitioner did not receive any communication in relation to the prayer for
grant of compassionate appointment or compensation. Having left with
no option, the instant WP was filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the relevant clause of NCWA was considered in catena of
4
2025:CHC-AS:1436-DB
orders by this Court and this Court opined that there is no requirement
as per Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA to expressly prefer an application for grant
of compensation. On the contrary, it is the duty of the employer to pay
the monetary compensation to the widow. The similar view is taken in
catena of other orders.
7. By placing reliance on certain judgments, learned Counsel for the writ
petitioner submits that law is well-settled on two aspects. The first is
that the monetary compensation is to be paid to the widow immediately
after the date of death of the breadwinner/husband or from the next
month. Secondly, the monetary compensation is a right which accrued
automatically pursuant to Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA in favour of the
widow/dependent. No express application needs to be filed by her for
claiming the benefit of monetary compensation. It is the duty of the
employer to provide the monetary compensation to the widow on its own.
Reference is made to the decisions rendered in MAT 1257 of 2021 (M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Smt. Kajol Badyakar & Ors.), FMA 1693 of
2019 (M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Smt. Shefali Khan & Ors.),
APOT 49 of 2019 (M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors. vs. Premlata
Devi & Ors.), APOT 518 of 2007 (Smt. Chhaya Singh Sardar vs. Coal India
Limited & Ors.), APOT 88 of 2013 (M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited vs.
Bipini Marandi & Ors.), APOT 151 of 2016 (M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited vs. Bimali Majhain & Ors.), APO 61 of 2023 (Eastern Coalfields
Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mina Bouri & Ors.), 2024 SCC OnLine 1535 (Central
Coalfields Limited vs. Bipini Murmu) and Civil Appeal No. 8089 of 2002
(S.K. Mustan Bee vs General Manager, South Central Railway & Anr.)
5
2025:CHC-AS:1436-DB
8. It is further submitted that another Division Bench of this Court in
Eastern Coal Fields Limited vs. Sumi Kamin & Ors. (WPO No. 3145
of 2022) considered the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
Dukhni Bhuiya (Supra) on which heavy reliance is placed by learned
Counsel for the employer. This Court distinguished the judgment of
Dukhni Bhuiya (Supra). In nutshell, learned Counsel for the writ
petitioner submits that various judgments of this Court taking aforesaid
view of automatic payment of monetary compensation were not interfered
with by Supreme Court and SLPs were dismissed. He placed reliance on
following orders:
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No (s). 10167/ 2023 (M/s. Eastern Coal
Fields Limited & Ors. Vs. Ambabati Mahali,
Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No (s). 27524 of 2023 (Eastern Coal
Fields Limited & Ors. Vs. Chapala Kora) and Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No (s). 19043-19044 of 2024 (@ Diary no. 22428 of 2024)
(Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Kosmi Devi Bhuia & Ors.)
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in his rejoinder submission
submits that the present writ petitioner is not a rustic villager or an
illiterate person. She is holding a master’s degree. She ought to have
preferred an application for grant of monetary compensation. There is
inordinate delay on her part to prefer application for monetary claim and
approaching this Court for the said benefit. In this backdrop, she is only
entitled to get arrears from 3 years before the date of filing of writ
petition. Lastly, by placing reliance on communication dated 8.6.2020
Annexure ‘P-8’ it is urged that it is called as “reminder-1”. This reminder
nowhere suggests that it was in relation to grant of compassionate
6
2025:CHC-AS:1436-DB
appointment. Thus, it appears that this reminder is in relation to
providing certain necessary informations and documents so that
monetary compensation can be granted.
10. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above. We
have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
Findings:-
11. The petitioner’s husband admittedly died-in-harness in the year 2007.
After the death of the breadwinner, she filed an application for grant of
compassionate appointment. Although, the learned Counsel for the
parties have taken diametrically opposite stand about factum of filing of
applications dated 10.07.2008 and 14.09.2009 for compassionate
appointment, fact remains that petitioner’s application for grant of
compassionate appointment was admittedly rejected on 06.09.2017. It is
noteworthy that widow is not entitled for both the claims, namely,
compassionate appointment and monetary compensation. Once, her
claim for monetary compensation was pending till 06.09.2017, there was
no occasion for her to submit an application for grant of monetary
compensation. She admittedly preferred an application for review to
revisit the claim of grant of compassionated appointment. This
application could not fetch any result.
12. The writ petitioner then filed the writ petition on 13.09.2022 which is
allowed by the learned Single Judge. As noticed above, learned Counsel
for employer has not challenged the entitlement of the petitioner to get
monetary compensation. The claim is called in question to restrict the
7
2025:CHC-AS:1436-DB
benefit of arrears from the date of death. The singular ground advanced
for such curtailment is the alleged delay on the part of the employer. As
noticed above, it was employer who was actually responsible for not
deciding the claim of compassionate appointment till 06.09.2017. Thus,
monetary claim of compensation from 2007 to 2017 definitely accrued in
favour of the writ petitioner. Interestingly, this Bench by order dated
19.11.2024 directed the employer to pay the monetary compensation to
the widow from 23.04.2013 without prejudice to the pendency of this
matter. In obedience of this order, admittedly the monetary
compensation has been paid to the widow from 20.04.2013.
13. A Division Bench of this Court in case of Sumi Kamin (WPO 3145 of
2022) considered a series of judgments and came to hold that under the
NCWA, the compensation is liable to be paid from the date immediately
following the death of the employee. The relevant portions read as
under:-
“29. It is evident that the right to employment on compassionate
ground or the MMCC germinates on the death of an employee in
harness. Such legal position coupled with the provision contained in
Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of NCWA clearly indicates that MMCC is liable to be
paid from the date immediately following the death of the employee.
There is no specific provision in the NCWA which stipulates
the mandatory requirement of an application, in order to
entitle the female dependant to MMCC. There is also no specific
provision authorizing the department to remain sitting tight over the
matter unless an application in this regard is made by the concerned
dependant. Rather the words “if no employment has been offered”
and the words “the female dependant will be monetary
compensation as per rates at paras (1) and (2) above” clearly imply
that the MMCC is to be paid by the employer irrespective of any
claim. The employer is under obligation to offer the same.
(Emphasis Supplied)
8
2025:CHC-AS:1436-DB
14. Interestingly, in this case, the previous judgment of Kajoli Bouri
(supra) was considered wherein it was poignantly held that the right of
female dependent of deceased workmen gets automatically crystallized
upon the death of the workmen. The Court even held that the widow
would be deemed to have exercised the option to receive compensation
which would be payable from the date of death or the month following
the date of death of the workman. The following passage is important:
“The right to the compensation is unconditionally immediate and is
not dependant on any application for the purpose. Indeed,
given the rationale behind the provision, it is the duty of the
concerned coal company to both advise the dependant female
member of a deceased workman of her rights and guide her to the
appropriate option. A government company as an employer cannot
be heard to say that a distressed family would deprive of the benefit
by reason of any belated application therefor. The appointment
sought on compassionate ground may be declined on account
of delay or other cogent grounds; but the monthly
compensation has to be paid with effect from the date of
death of the workman or the month following the death.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. Coming back to the instant case, we are unable to persuade ourselves
with the line of argument of learned Counsel for the employer based on
the order of Supreme Court in the case of Dukhni Bhuiya (Supra). In
that case, there was delay on the part of the widow. The Apex Court has
not considered the aspect whether right of compensation is accrued in
favour of widow automatically without there being any need of filing any
application. Interestingly, in the instant case, the petitioner’s husband
died in 2007 and petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment
was kept pending till 2017. The chain of events mentioned in the factual
portion of this judgment shows that the widow was not a sleeping litigant
9
2025:CHC-AS:1436-DB
or a “fence sitter”. She continuously prosecuted her matter for grant of
compassionate appointment/monetary compensation. The Division
Bench judgment of this Court in Sumi Kamin (supra) is binding on us.
After considering the catena of judgments, the Division Bench came to
hold that right to get the monetary compensation is automatic and widow
cannot be deprived from the fruits of it on the ground that she had not
submitted any application. In Dukhni Bhuiya (supra) the Apex Court
has not considered the aspect of liability of employer to pay the
compensation without there being any application. This point was
decided by Division Bench in specific in Sumi Kamin (supra). In AIR 68
SC 647 (State of Orissa vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra & Ors.) and in
2006 (1) SCC 368 (Union of India & Anr. Vs. Major Bahadur Singh)
it was held that precedent is what has been actually decided by the
Court and not what is logically flowing from it. Hence, we are bound by
the judgment of Sumi Kamin (supra) and judgment of Dukhni Bhuiya
(supra) does not improve the case of employer. Therefore, we find no
reason to deviate from the view taken in Sumi Kamin (supra).
16. In view of foregoing analysis, in our judgment, the employer cannot
claim benefit of their own wrong. They sat tight over the matter for grant
of compassionate appointment for about a decade. Thereafter also there
were exchange of communications between the petitioner and the
employer including the document dated 08.06.2020 Annexure ‘P-8’.
When petitioner’s efforts could not fetch any result, she filed the instant
petition in 2022. Thus, even otherwise, there was no inordinate delay on
10
2025:CHC-AS:1436-DB
the part of the widow. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has
taken a plausible view which does not warrant any interference of this
Court. (See 2016 (3) SCC 240 (Narendra & Co. vs. Workman)
17. The intra court appeal sans substance and is hereby dismissed.
18. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be
made available to the parties subject to compliance with the requisites
formalities.
(Sujoy Paul, J.)
I agree.
(Smita Das De, J.)