Calcutta High Court
Eastern Coalfields Limited And Ors vs Mangali @ Mangala Bouri on 1 July, 2025
Author: T.S. Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S. Sivagnanam
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
Present:-
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS
APOT 106 OF 2025
with
GA/2/2025
EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS
VS
MANGALI @ MANGALA BOURI
For the Appellant : Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Sanchita Barman Roy, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Partha Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Simran Sureka, Adv.
Mr. Debashis Das, Adv.
Mr. Bratin Guin, Adv.
APOT 123 OF 2025
With
GA/2/2025
MANGALI @ MANGALA BOURI
VS
EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS
For the Appellant : Mr. Partha Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Simran Sureka, Adv.
Page 1 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
Mr. Debashis Das, Adv.T
Mr. Bratin Guin, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Sanchita Barman Roy, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty, Adv.
Last Heard on : 21.05.2025 Judgement on : 01.07.2025 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J:-
1. These intra Court appeals have been filed by both the parties against a
judgement and order dated 26.11.2024, allowing the prayer of the writ
petitioner Mangala Bouri for her claim of Monthly Monetary Cash
Compensation (MMCC) and directing the Appellant Authority to pay the
same from the date of death of her mother that is 27th November 2000 with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
2. The appellant Authority challenged the order on the ground of wrong
interpretation by the learned single Judge in respect of the facts and
circumstances of the case and saddled them with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum ignoring the negligence on the part of the writ petitioner/claimant
to substantiate her claim with proper and sufficient documents. That apart
the ground of challenge of the said judgement by the claimant is the
quantum of interest granted by the single Bench and prayed for 18% interest
instead of 6% per annum with costs of Rs .10 Lakhs only for the harassment
Page 2 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
suffered by her. Since both the appeal germinated from the same judgement
and order and the matter for adjudication in both the cases are same, the
appeals were heard analogously.
Brief fact of the case
3. The husband of Tulsi Bouri was an employee of Eastern Coalfield limited in
short (ECL) , who is a leading coal producer in India , Government of India
undertaking and one of the subsidiaries of the Coal India Limited. After
demise of the said employee, his wife Tulsi Bouri was given a compassionate
appointment. On September 8, 2008, Tulsi Bouri applied for VRS and GHS
scheme, which was under active consideration and on November 27, 2000,
received intimation from the respondent regarding death of her mother Tulsi
Bouri, expired on November 26, 2000.
4. The Claimant /writ petitioner made an application before the Appellant No.1
seeking employment on compassionate ground on December 14, 2000 and on
March 14, 2001, submitted her attestation, biodata, etc. Dispute raised
primarily regarding her claim of sole dependant daughter of the deceased
employee when in the service record names of other legal heirs were found.
Several communications were made between the parties relating to her
application and she also appeared before a committee constituted by ECL to
consider her case on several occasion with the necessary documents and on
April 22, 2003 she specifically refused to take MMCC of ₹3000 in lieu of
employment.
5. Long thereafter in the year 2013 she was suddenly intimated about certain
discrepancies and was again directed to appear and then on 19.8.24 she
Page 3 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
made a representation before the Authority and claimed for MMCC in place of
employment. Since the authority did not take any positive step she filed a writ
petition being WP No. 915 (w) of 2024, seeking payment of arrears of MMCC
back from the date of death of her mother, which was contested by the
Authority .The learned Single Judge by virtue of an order dated November 26,
2024, allowed the prayer of the writ petitioner Mongolia Bouri directing the
Authority to pay the arrears of MMCC along with 6% interest per annum
considering the fact the claimant has surpassed the age of 45.Being aggrieved
thereby these intra court appeals have been preferred by both the parties .
Submissions
6. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the ECL, would submit that the
appointment of Tulsi Bouri was a compassionate appointment in place of her
deceased husband after considering all the documents as well as after
compliance with all formalities. Tulsi Bouri during her life time on September
8, 2000, applied for VRS and GHS scheme, which was pending for
consideration. Meantime the claimant, claiming to be the sole widowed
daughter of the deceased Tulsi Bouri informed the present appellant on
November 27, 2000 about the demise of her mother on November 26, 2000. It
is submitted that the husband of the claimant passed away only on October
10, 2000 that is only after few days after death of her mother and that ipso
facto cannot be a ground to claim for a compassionate appointment unless
she proves that she was the sole dependent legal heir of the deceased
employee and is entitled for the employment. On December 14, 2000, the
respondent made the application before the appellant No.1 seeking
Page 4 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
employment on compassionate ground and on March 14, 2001 she filed her
biodata along with other documents.
7. It is also submitted that she filed an indemnity bond executed by one Shashti
Dhibar indemnifying the relationship between the her and said deceased
employee as mother and daughter. The appellant found serious discrepancies
in the said indemnity bond and despite repeated request made by the
company the respondent failed to clarify the said discrepancies. She even
neglected to appear before the screening committee constituted by the
Authority to consider her application when the dispute pertains to the
genuinity of her claim of sole dependency.
8. It is further submitted that though the claimant claimed to be the sole
dependant heir of the deceased the service record revealed the names of other
sons and daughter of said Tulsi Bouri and therefore it was necessary to seek
the clarification for arriving at a concrete decision .On two occasions she did
not appear and lastly appeared before the screening committee and gave the
reasoning that the other named family members were illiterate and had no
knowledge about the service /development so the compassionate appointment
should only be given to her. She failed to furnish any “No objection” from
such family members which is otherwise a mandatory and non- negotiable
requirement of the Authority according to the prevailing rules. Further
submission advanced by the Authority that despite having sufficient
discrepancies the authority being a State, considered the beneficial aspect of
the employee and decided to call her again with requisite documents and
Page 5 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
accordingly gave the letter on April 3rd, 2003. Long thereafter lastly the
respondent produced the succession certificate on June 9th, 2005.
9. It is contended that the succession certificate may be considered as a proof of
her claim as a legal heir of the deceased but failed to substantiate that she
was dependant on her mother. In the meantime the company despite she
having failed to clear the ambiguity, proposed the claimant to take MMCC of
Rs. 3000/- in lieu of employment but that offer was turned down by the
Respondent and demanded the employment only. Accordingly she was again
asked to submit the No objection from the other family members whose
names were found in the office record and several communications took place
since July 2003 to November 2011 in this regard.
10. It is further contended by the learned advocate that the claimant /Writ
petitioner although failed and neglected to cooperate with the Authority, filed
the writ petition claiming the MMCC back from the date of death of her
mother. The prayer of the petitioner was allowed by the Hon’ble Single Bench
with 6% interest which was completely on an erroneous interpretation of law
and facts. It is further contended by the learned advocate that in another
identical set of Appeal the same travelled up to Hon’ble Supreme Court where
the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench was upheld that the Company was
held liable to pay MMCC back for a period of three years commencing from
the date of filing of the writ petition.
11. Further argument advanced was that the amount as claimed if allowed to
be paid would be to Rs. 44,84,635.08 /- plus interest which will be a huge
burden and ultimately would be a catalyst for wastage of public money, when
Page 6 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
it is a subsidiary under the Coal India Ltd. The learned Single Bench failed to
consider the absence of any reason, for the inordinate delay in approaching
the Court claiming the arrears amount towards MMCC starting from 26 th
November, 2000 till 2024.
12. It is strenuously argued that the learned Single Judge ought to have
considered, while allowing the prayer of the writ petitioner from the death of
the mother with interest, the observations made in number of cases by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Hon’ble Court regarding payment of
arrear. Accordingly the Appellant Authority prayed for modification in case
the order impugned is allowed to sustain, for a period of three years backward
commencing from the date of filing the writ petition as the law pertaining to
the limitation for being awarded MMCC has been settled by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & ors vs Dukhini
Bhuiya (Civil Appeal no 673 of 2023).
13. On the other hand the appellant /writ petitioner/claimant represented
through her learned advocate, assailed before the court that she being the
widowed daughter of Tulsi Bouri who died in harness, prayed for an
compassionate employment in terms of the prevailing settlement, by letter
dated 14.12.2000 as she was not willing to receive the MMCC. Immediately
thereafter on 14.3.2001 she also submitted all her documents to substantiate
her claim. After that also whenever it was asked for she furnished all the
documents but the authority did not consider the same nor provided the
death cum retirement benefit of her mother and accordingly she had to apply
Page 7 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
for succession certificate which was granted on 18.8.2003. Despite
submitting the same, the company did not release the death benefit.
14. It is also argued that even after clarifying all the queries ,the final decision
of her employment reached up to highest level as sent for the final approval
and accordingly the authority placed her in the final employment status list
being WD-2392 with the remark ‘under process’ . It is her further contention
that this entire process took long 24 years and she grew older and surpassed
the age bar and then only she made the representation dated 19.8.2024
intimating that she belongs to schedule caste community and is facing funds
crunch as her mother was the sole breadwinner and accordingly prayed for
the amount of MMCC instead of the employment, from the date of death of
her mother.
15. In course of argument, it is also submitted that in identical situations, the
dependent of the deceased employee filed a writ petition being W.P.O No. 331
of 2020 and W.P. O number 332 of 2020, where the Hon’ble Court by order
dated 20th October, 2020 directed the Director, Personnel of ECL to consider
the representation and to pass reasoned order and also directed that ECL
authority to have the same view that monetary compensation has to be paid
from the date of death of employee. In this regard the learned advocate has
relied upon the following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court ,
1 (Central Coalfield vs Bipini Murmu & ors )
2(Mohan Mahato vs Central Coaldield Ltd & ors )
3 (Sukhomoni Hembram vs Union of India.
1
2024 SCC online SC 1535
2
(2007) 8 SCC 549
Page 8 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
16. It is further submitted that Chapter IX of the National Coal Wage
Agreement (NCWA) provides for social security. Clause 9.3.1 of NCWA
provides for employment to dependent of workers who are disabled
permanently and also those who die while in service and also provides for the
manner of implementation of such provisions in the following clauses. Clause
9.3.2 of NCWA provides that so far as female dependents are concerned, their
employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by
paragraph/clause 9.5.0 and by no means the Authority can deny such
settlement even on the ground of delay. In this regard relied upon a decision
of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 4 (Subhadra vs Ministry of Coal and
Anr). It is further contended that the petitioner is illiterate lady and in such
circumstances, naturally it was difficult for her to comprehend the rules and
regulations guiding their case and to forthwith act the formalities but the
complicated and lengthy procedure for consideration of the prayer of the
claimant and the gross negligence on the part of the appellant authority are
the root causes for this inordinate delay which disentitled her from having the
opportunity of employment and further to drag her to court .In this regard the
Learned Advocate has relied upon a decision reported in5 ( S.K Mastan Bee
vs General Manager ,South Central Railway and another )
17. However, the Hon’ble Single Bench while allowing her prayer, granted
interest only about 6% when she is entitled to 18% interest considering the
prolonged delay and harassment faced by her, and hence she has also
preferred the intra court appeal, against the said Order. The Learned
3
2024 SCC online cal 17361
4
(2018) 11 SCC 201
5
2002 SCC online SC 1160
Page 9 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
Advocate relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.Kapur
versus Director of 6and Gorakhpur University vs Shetala Prasad 7 in support
of his contention that the interest to be awarded at 18%.
18. Heard the submissions of the learned advocates of the parties of both
the Appeals.
Analysis
It is undisputed that Tulsi Bouri since deceased was an employee of the
Authority (ECL) and she died in harness. The stand taken by the
appellant/authority that the said Tulsi Bouri got the appointment on
compassionate ground and the claimant was the married daughter so
otherwise she was not entitled to have an appointment on compassionate
ground unless she fulfils the required criteria which she failed to
substantiate. According to the Authority, the service record revealed that
Tulsi Bouri had two sons and a daughter but it was the claimant who applied
for compassionate appointment claiming to be the sole dependant heir of the
deceased. In this regard the letter of reply dated April 25, 2001 of the
claimant, if looked into, would suggest the claimant specifically stated that
she is the only daughter of Tulsi Bouri and it is not necessary to submit any
“No Objection Certificate” as called for.
19. The screening committee consisting of three members was constituted by
the Appellant Authority who further asked for clarification regarding other
members of the family namely Niren Bouri, Nareen Bouri ,Nirupa Bouri and
6
(1994) 6 SCC 589
7
(2001) 6 SCC 591
Page 10 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
Tani Bouri after the respondent appeared before the committee since their
names were found in the record . On perusal of the finding of the screening
committee dated September 3rd, 2001 as annexed with the stay application,
it appears that, in the Gratuity nomination Form of Tulsi Bouri the name of
Mangala Bouri was nominated for full share of the Gratuity and after local
enquiry also the committee was of the opinion that she is the only surviving
member of Late Tulsi Bouri and her claim is a genuine one. However certain
queries arose regarding the age of the claimant/respondent and accordingly
observed that the age will be assessed subject to the opinion of the Medical
Board. Surprisingly the above finding was typed and signed by the three
members on 27.8.2001 but after that certain hand written points are noted
with certain observation that, on 3rd September 2001 as per option form her
age comes to 18 years when she claimed to be 35 years so some doubt arises
regarding the genuinity. No explanation can be found from the four corners of
the stay application as to why after the committee arrived at a finding
considering the genuinity of the claim, on 27th August , 2001 took a different
stand after few days questioning the genuineness of the claim. In the said
decision the names of other family member are also written . The claimant
Appellant in A.P.O.T123 of 2025 has annexed a computer generated
document showing the status of employment under National Coal wage
Agreement ,October 2022 (P-12) where the name of late Tulsi Bouri WD-2392
as an ex-employee of Mithilapur Colliery with name of claimant as Mongola
Bouri as widow daughter is shown as under process. Therefore the pendency
Page 11 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
of the application of employment by the claimant before the authority since
2000 is well established.
20. That apart the said finding appears to be silent about the next date of
appearance of the respondent, but vide a letter dated 4th October 2001 the
claimant was again directed to appear before the screening committee on
October 10, 2001 at 10 A.M. along with all relevant document/ papers in
original. She was further directed to attend with two permanent employees as
witness with their identity card. The documents annexed with the stay
petition shows the further finding of the screening committee held on 15th
May 2002 when again the she recorded her statement and reiterated her
stand that she is the only surviving dependent legal heir of the deceased Tulsi
Bouri. On March 13, 2002, she also produced two witnesses from the colliery
who endorsed the fact that the respondent/claimant is the daughter of late
Tulsi Bouri. The record clearly shows that on repeated occasions the claimant
appeared before the screening committee and recorded her statement,
submitted the required document and claimed that she is the only surviving
legal heir of the deceased. It is quite surprising that the authority never
refused or rejected the claim of the claimant, nor provided her either with the
employment or with the death benefit, completely ignoring the settlement as
recorded in the NCWA. In the year 2003, the respondent informed the
Personnel Manager on April 22, 2003 that she wanted employment and will
not accept ₹3000 per month as monetary compensation in lieu of
employment.
Page 12 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
21. In the decision of Sukhomoni Hembram vs Union of India And Ors. (supra)
the mother of the appellant had nominated the appellants for employment in
the died in harness category in terms of NCWA then prevailing by a writing
dated March 4, 2022 and the respondent authorities processed such
application up to a given level . The appellants were called for medical
examination and requested to appear before the screening committee .The
appellant duly appeared after undertaking the medical examination but since
there was no progress, filed the writ petition . Hon’ble Division Bench
discussed the case of Subhdra (supra), Putul Rabidas vs Eastern Coalfield Ltd
reported in8 of the Special Bench of this High Court and of the Division
Bench of this High Court in9 (Santi Ruidas vs Coal India Ltd) and Eastern
Coalfields Ltd. Vs Kumari Kiran Singh, 10and observed ;
45. ‘Unlike other scheme of compassionate appointment
which usually provides for negation of the claim of
appointment on the grounds of financial solvency or delay
,clauses 9.3.0 to 9.5.0 of the NCWA does not specify
financial solvency or delay to be disqualifications for
receipt of compassionate appointment or monetary
compensation .As noted above the provisions of NCWA
which is a settlement within the meaning of the Act of
1947 are required to be strictly construed.’
22. This decision was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 14.10.24 in SLP
no. 23181/2024. The learned advocate in course of argument filed through
8
2017 volume 6, WBLR (cal) 255
9
(2010) 2 CHN 327
10
2019 (1) CLT 130
Page 13 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
his compilation a copy of the reasoned order in compliance with a direction of
the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in Jyoti Devi Khoyra vs M/SE.C.L & Ors.
(W.P.O No.331 of 2020).The concluding part of such order shows the
observation of the Authority which discussed the principle behind the concept
of compassionate appointment and further that in number of cases the
widow/claimants insist for employment in various forums or through VIP
references and are very adamant in not accepting MMCC but after losing all
hopes for compassionate appointment they claim for MMCC with interest
from the date of the death of the employee which results in sudden financial
implications over the company but the E.C.L being a Public Sector
undertaking and also State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is a
bona fide employer and always strives to ensure that the dependents of the
deceased employees should get maximum of the benevolent provisions.
Accordingly paid the monetary compensation in applicable rates from the
death of the deceased employee till she attained 60 years of age upon
completing all the necessary formalities .In that case also the application for
compassionate appointment was not considered being a belated claim. In the
case on hand the Authority kept silent and did not inform the fate of the claim
of the claimant.
23. In Chapter IX clause 9.5.0. (ii) Of the NCWA, it is very clearly and
specifically mentioned that a female dependant, if below 45 years of age, has
an option either to accept monetary compensation or employment. It is not an
option reserved to the employer, but an option given to the employee.
Therefore, the claimant Mangala Bouri in exercise of such option insisted for
Page 14 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
giving an employment instead of monetary compensation and therefore the
statement was well justified in doing so. In the decision relied upon on behalf
of the claimant reported in11 (Subhadra vs Ministry of Coal and anr.) the
Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the entitlement of a claimant pursuant the
scheme of NCWA. It was observed that the provision related to payment of
MMCC is guided by the National Wage Agreement (NCWA.), which is governed
by a Bipartite agreement signed on 23.12.23. In the said case the claim for
compassionate appointment was declined though it was not disputed that on
the death of her husband she was 35 years of age and they had a minor son
aged about 13 years. The Authority was prepared to pay the monetary
compensation but she wanted employment. The stand of the Authority was
compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and relied upon the
decision of Canara Bank vs M.Mahesh Kumar12 (2015) 7 SCC 412. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there is no quarrel with the settled
proposition but the case was not discretionary compassionate appointment
governed by statutory guidelines but governed by a scheme as agreed by the
parties and which has become a part of the scheme. So the terms of
agreement are very specific and give no room for any discretion. It was further
held that
‘ In para 9.5.0 (ii) of the Agreement it is very clearly and
specifically mentioned that a female dependant if ,below
the age of 45 years of age ,has a option either to accept the
monetary compensation or employment .It is not an option
11
(2018) 11 SCC 201
12
(2015) 7 SCC 412
Page 15 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
reserved to the employer ,but an option given to the
employee. It was in terms of the Agreement only that the
Appellants had been insisting that she should be given
employment if she is otherwise eligible in terms of the
Bipartite Agreement.
Para 9.50 (iii) would come into play only in case para
9.5.0 (ii) does not operate .Employment is assured to the
dependant in terms of the Bipartite Agreement .If the
female dependent opts for employment there is no further
discretion left to the employer ,unless she is otherwise
ineligible .There is no such contention raised by anybody .
24. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court observed in Sukhomoni
Hembram vs Union of India (supra) in paragraph no. 21 to 25 as follows;
21. NCWA is a negotiated agreement that has been arrived
at between the employer and the employees. It is a
settlement under section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and has binding effect on the parties thereto
under section 18 (3) of the Act of 1947. NCWA has made
provisions for compassionate appointment for the
dependents of the deceased employee.
22. Compassionate appointment is an exception to the
general rule of merit-based recruitment under Article14 of
the Constitution of India. It is provided to the family of the
deceased in order to tide over the immediate financial
Page 16 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
penury that the family of the deceased employee upon
death or medical incapitation of the employee.
Compassionate appointment is governed by the terms of
employment of the deceased employee. Compassionate
appointment is not a matter of right unless emanating out
of the terms of employment of the deceased employee.
Compassionate appointment is a contingency provided for
in the context of employment of concerned employee, the
happening of which triggers a right to receive employment
on fulfilment of the specified criteria. Right to receive
compassionate appointment vests the right to receive
employment with the specified dependent on the
happening of the pre-identified contingencies.
23. Terms and conditions of employment of the deceased
employee may in a given case vest discretion upon the
employer with regard to grant of compassionate
appointment. Usually, the terms of employment of the
deceased employee for the grant of compassionate
appointment takes into consideration the financial
condition of the family of the deceased employee. It
usually prescribes a time limit within which an application
for compassi9onate appointment is required to be made by
the family member of the deceased employee for
successful consideration thereof.
Page 17 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
24. In absence of any stipulation to the contrary an
employer cannot choose which of the beneficiaries of the
concerned employee should opt for the compassionate
appointment when it is provided for in the terms of
employment.
25. Terms of compassionate appointment have to be
strictly construed. Both the employer and the employee are
bound by the terms and conditions governing the
employment of the deceased employee, at the time of his
death. On a true and proper construction of the terms and
conditions of the settlement under the Act of 1947
governing the employment of the deceased employee
where such terms allow more than one interpretation, then
the one which is beneficial to the employee, (as an
employee is considered a weaker section in the collective
bargaining resulting in the settlement), Is to be opted. In
the facts of the present case, the terms of employment of
the deceased employee are governed inter alia by clauses
9.3.0. to 9.5.0 of the NCWA which is a settlement within
the meaning of the Act of 1947.
25. The Appellant/Authority is a public sector undertaking and thereby it is
“State” under article 12 of the Constitution of India and as a Model employer
must ensure that the family members of the deceased employee must not face
Page 18 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
financial crisis, after sudden demise of the sole breadwinner of the family. The
Claimant herein also produced the succession certificate from the District
Delegate at Asansol and submitted the same before the authority and by a
letter dated 22 April 2003 expressed her unwillingness to accept ₹3000 per
month in lieu of employment however her claim was kept pending.
26. The provision made in 9.3.2 is Employment to one dependent of the worker
who dies while in service and clause 9.3.2. deals with-
In so far as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of
monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0.
It is neither in doubt, nor in dispute that the grant of compassionate
appointment of a widowed daughter was required to be considered in terms of
9.3.3 which reads as follows:
The dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband
as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally
adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for
employment, brother widowed daughter/widowed
daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased
and almost wholly dependent on the earnings of the
deceased may be considered to be the dependant of the
deceased.
27. In the instant case, the respondent first applied for appointment on
compassionate ground on December 14, 2000 and as she was offered with
MMCC of ₹3000 per month, she declined to accept the same exercising option
for employment in accordance with the above terms of settlement on April 22,
Page 19 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB2003. She further produced the succession certificate to avail the death
benefit of late Tulsi Bouri, which was also denied to her by the authority. No
further communication was made since 2011 till 24th August 2024 when the
claimant informed that she is facing fund crunch as her mother was the sole
bread winner of the family and no employment has been given to her and also
prayed for immediate release of MMCC for survival.
28. Therefore in the light of above discussion there was no bar in claiming the
MMCC if she is above the age of 45 years in view of the above clause. So
either she was to be given an employment or the stipulated monetary
compensation unless otherwise found not eligible or suitable for availing any
of the above. In the decision relied upon by the learned advocate of the
appellant reported in 113 Mohan Mahato vs Central Coalfield Ltd Ors it was
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, the public sector undertaking,
which is the ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India, not only to act fairly but also reasonably and bonafidely and in view of
the fact, a beneficial provision is made under a settlement. It was further
observed that
‘ a settlement within the meaning of subsection (3) of
section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act is binding on both
the parties and continues to remain in force unless the
same is altered ,modified or substituted by another
settlement . No period of limitation was provided in the
settlement. We would assume that the respondent had
13
(2007)8 SCC 549Page 20 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DBjurisdiction to issue such circular prescribing a period of
limitation for filing an application for grant and
appointment on compassionate grounds. But such circular
was not only required to be strictly complied with but also
was required to be read keeping in view the settlement
entered into between the parties .The expanding definition
of workman as contained in section 2 (s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act would confer a right upon the appellant to
obtain appointment on compassionate grounds, subject of
course, to compliance with the conditions precedent
contained therein’.
Therefore in the instant case the silence on the part of the Authority for a
prolong period certainly dehors the purpose of the settlement as entered into
and certainly that breaches the fundamental right of the claimant.
29. It is the stand taken by the learned advocate of the Authority that the
negligence was on the part of the claimant in giving appropriate reply or to
submit documents to satisfy the authority regarding the ambiguity or the
discrepancies pointed out, in order to enable them to proceed more
expeditiously and despite that they were prepared to grant the MMCC to the
claimant whereas it was she who insisted for employment. Even if for the
sake of argument and on prima facie looking into the communications made
by the Authority, some substances can be found as the Authority was to
satisfy about the genuinity of the claim of dependency but that may be
considered till the finding of the committee was arrived at, that is on 27th
Page 21 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
August 2001. The argument that the claimant ought to have been more
careful while giving the reply regarding other family members as raised by the
Authority cannot be accepted as the court cannot be oblivious of the fact
that both Tulsi Bouri and the claimant were illiterate and it would have been
really difficult for them to follow the procedure. In the case of S.k Mastan Bee
vs General Manager, South Central Railway and another (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held ;
“It is on record that the appellant is an illiterate who at
the time of her husband’s death did not know of her legal
right to family pension and the remedy to enforce her such
right . On the death of the husband of the Appellant ,it was
obligatory for her husband’s employer viz the railways ,in
the present case to compute the family pension payable to
the appellant and offer the same to her without her having
to make a claim or without driving her to a litigation .The
very denial of her right to family pension amounts to a
violation of the guarantee assured to the appellant under
30. But the Authority once arrived at a finding, in absence of any cogent
ground again asked the claimant to appear further, instead of asking her to
appear before any medical Board for assessing the age and thereby created a
stalemate situation. The conduct of the Appellant therefore never appeared to
be for the benefit of the family of the deceased and cannot be appreciated in
terms of the basic principles behind such scheme which was only to mitigate
Page 22 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
the financial issues occurs on account of sudden death of the sole earning
member. More so the appellant asked for ‘No Objection’ certificate from the
other family members on 2003 and then long after 9 years in the year 2011
and thereafter in the year 2013. It is evident that according to the whims
and fancies of the authority, they issued a letters to the claimant which
shows that they acted in most lackadaisical manner without making any
effort to ensure that the family of the deceased must not suffer from any
financial distress. Lastly the claimant was compelled to seek for the
compensation amount instead of the employment in the year 2024
anticipating that the claim for employment will be futile considering the age
bar .No communication was sent to her regarding the fate of her previous
application for a prolong period of 10 years and allowed the application to be
kept pending and also did not give reply to her representation made in the
year 2024.
31. The Appellate authority’s repeated demands for various documents,
suggest uncertainty about the exact requirements, leading to unnecessary
delays in processing the application. The authority’s decision to pay
compensation despite discrepancies raises questions about the rationale
behind this decision, specially when the claimant was not provided with
employment.
32. The ground of challenge to the order impugned by the authority pertains to
the period for which the arrear of MMCC has been granted along with 6%
interest without considering the specific objection taken that the cause of
delay was on the part of the claimant and the learned Judge was not correct
Page 23 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
in directing the appellant/authority to pay from November 27, 2000 that is
from the date of death of the employee. In this regard a decision relied upon
by the appellant reported in 14 (Hindustan Petroleum corporation Ltd vs Dolly
Das) can be looked into where it was held by the Apex Court that “the delay
by itself cannot defeat claim for relief unless position of other side had been so
altered which cannot be retracted on account of lapse of time or inaction of
petitioner.” It can be reiterated at the cost of repetition that NCWA being a
settlement arrived at between the employer and employee the binding effect in
terms of the provision under Industrial Disputes Act cannot be overlooked
and any refusal of benefit extended vide such settlement amounts to violation
of fundamental rights.
33. Further stand taken by the Authority that learned single judge granted
interest at the rate of 6% without any claim for interest by the claimant and
from the date of death of the deceased. In the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
court as relied upon by the learned advocate of the ECL in this regard as
reported in15 Subhadra vs Ministry of Coal & anr (supra), the compassionate
appointment was not given and the appellant prayed for interest on account
of loss of employment for 13 years and the rate of interest of 7.5% was
directed to be paid to compensate the appellant for the period from 2004 to
2018, and a lump sum amount of ₹5 lakhs was directed to be paid.
34. In an identical case as reported in16 Central Coal Field Limited versus Bipini
Murmu and others the prayer of one of the daughter of the deceased
employee for compassionate appointment was turned down by the appellant
14
1999 (4) Supreme 144
15
(2018) 11 SCC 201
16
(2024) SSC Online SC 1 535
Page 24 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
on the ground that a married daughter is not entitled for compassionate
appointment in terms of the National Wage Agreement. It was observed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that ;
8. It is apparent from bare perusal of the aforesaid clauses
that the employment would be provided by the appellant to
one dependent of an employee who died in harness. The
rider added is that in so far as female dependents are
concerned, their employment /payment of monetary
compensation would be governed by Clause 9.5.0 which
provides for employment. /monetary compensation to
female dependents of workers who died in harness while
in service or who were declared medically unfit and states
clearly in sub -clause (ii) that in case the female
dependent crossed 45 years of age, she would be entitled
only to monetary compensation per month and not to
employment.
35. In the said case the submission made by the learned counsel for the
respondent that the female dependent crossed the age bar of 45 years, and
therefore was not to be considered fit for being granted employment then
clause 9.3.3 would came into play was termed as fallacious . In the said case,
the widow of the diseased/employee was neither granted compassionate
appointment having crossed the age bar of 45 years, nor was, she granted
any monetary compensation to which she was entitled in terms of the NCWA.
Page 25 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
Accordingly the Hon’ble Court directed the appellant to pay monetary
compensation to the widow of the deceased from the date of the demise of her
husband. The arrears computed was directed to be released in favour of the
widow within six weeks from the date of order. In the case on hand also the
widowed daughter was neither given employment nor the monetary
compensation and also did not dispose of the application, causing a state of
limbo. The claim of the authority for not granting any compensation or
employment immediately after the demise of the employee may be considered
because in this case the claimant claimed to be the sole dependent legal heir
of the deceased employee but names of some other persons also found from
the record and the claimant was asked to substantiate with cogent
documents. But the inaction on the part of the Authority not to provide either
monetary compensation or employment for long 11 years failed to justify the
conduct, considering it as a public undertaking and a State withing the
meaning of Article 12 of the constitution.
36. So far the stand taken by the Authority that the arrear ought to have been
considered preceding last three years and relied upon the decision of
Dukhini Bhuiya (supra) but the facts of that case is way different than the
instant case, since after the death of the employee no application for
monetary compensation was made for 21 years by the claimant and thereby
the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the monetary compensation for the period
backwards for three years prior to the date of writ petition. When in this case
immediately after the death of the employee the widowed daughter made the
application along with all the required documents and on the basis of that the
Page 26 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
committee was constituted before whom the claim ant appeared but on
repeated occasion the claimant though furnished the documents failed to
arrive at any conclusion.
Conclusion
37. Therefore, the ratio decidendi all the decisions relied upon should inure in
favour of the claimant in view of the facts and circumstances, the manner in
which the application was processed and allowed the same to be kept pending
and thereby the order to provide MMCC to the claimant was passed rightly by
the learned Single Judge and requires no interference. After giving an anxious
consideration of the entire facts, circumstances, coupled with the various
judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court ,it is amply clear that the
appellant authority under the garb of processing of the application and taking
advantage of the silence on the part of the respondent for these long 10 years
showed ample apathy over the issue of giving employment or the monetary
compensation to the claimant and thereby failed to implement the scheme
and only after the writ petition was filed ,the Authority became active to
contest the same .Therefore the stand taken by the learned advocate of the
Appellant that on account of negligence on the part of the claimant in
satisfying the authority ,such huge unexplained delay about 10 years
occurred and the claim of monetary benefits to be limited to 3 years
proceeding the date of petition filed before the High Court does not merit
acceptance ,and thus rejected.
Page 27 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
38. In view of the various judicial pronouncement, it is settled that the
monetary compensation or compassionate appointment in terms of NCWA is
not a matter of any bounty to be distributed by the authorities, but valuable
rights of the workmen attached to the company and any delay in settlement
and disbursement should be viewed seriously, and dealt with severely by
imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest. Therefore, no ground is
made out to interfere with any reason to discard the views expressed by the
learned Single Bench regarding payment of interest, rather considering the
long silence on the part of the Authority and in order to render complete
justice, the rate of interest be enhanced up to 7.5% instead of 6% however the
entitlement can be reckoned from the date when the committee took a
positive view about the Claim of the applicant from on 27th August, 2001.
39. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the ECL being A.P.O.T No. 106 of
2025 is dismissed and the appeal filed by the petitioner/claimant in A.P.O.T
No. 123 of 2025 is partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned
Single Bench is modified as follows:-
The arrear of the monetary compensation to be paid on from September 2001
when the committee was of the opinion about the authenticity of the claim
instead of the date of death of the deceased employee , along with simple
interest at the rate of 7.5% and such payment is to be made on or before 15th
July 2025.
40. The other observation of the Learned Judge is to remain unaltered.
Page 28 of 29
2025:CHC-OS:100-DB
41. Urgent certified copy if applied by any of the parties to be supplied subject
to observance of all formalities.
I agree
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM,CJ.)
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS,J.)
Page 29 of 29