[ad_1]
Bombay High Court
Smt. Dhanpati Wd/O Rambrich Nishad And … vs The Superintendent Of Mine/Manager, … on 20 May, 2025
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2025:BHC-NAG:5171-DB
WP-5417-2017(J).odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5417 of 2017
Smt.Dhanpati wd/o Rambrich Nishad
Aged about 48 years, Occupation-Nil.
R/o. Pota Hutment, Silewara Colony,
At & Post Silewara,
Tahsil-Saoner, Nagpur-441 109
District Nagpur.
2. Avinash s/o Late Rambrich Nishad,
Aged about 27 years, Occupation-Nil.
R/o Pota Hutment, Silewara Colony,
AT & Post Silewara, Tahsil-Saoner,
Nagpur-441 109, Dist. Nagpur. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Superintendent of Mine/Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited
(A Government of India Undertaking)
Silewara Colliery, At & Post Silewara,
Tahsil-Saoner, Nagpur-441 109.
District Nagpur.
2. The Area Personnel Manager,
Nagpur Area,
Western Coalfields Limited
(A Government of India Undertaking)
Registered Office: 'Coal Estate'.
Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001.
District Nagpur.
3. The Manager (P/MP),
Western Coalfields Limited,
(Miniratna Category-1 Government of India
Undertaking)
Personnel and Industrial Relations
Department, Registered Office:'Coal Estate',
Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001. Dist. Nagpur. .. RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.S.Gupta, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. R.S.Sirpurkar, Advocate (to assist the Court).
Mr. C.S.Samudra, Advocate for respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP-5417-2017(J).odt 2
CORAM :- NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
THE ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON : 13th MARCH, 2025
JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED ON : 20th MAY, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
Heard.
Rule. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the
respective parties.
By this petition the petitioners are challenging the impugned
communication dated 08.05.2017 issued by the respondent no. 3 whereby
the claim of the petitioner no. 2 for appointment on compassionate basis
was rejected. Further, they are seeking directions to the respondents to pay
monthly monetary compensation with effect from the date on which the ex-
employee died viz. 08.06.2000 with interest @ 18% p.a. till employment is
provided to the petitioner no. 2.
2. The factual matrix of the case appears to be that the husband
and the father of petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no.2 respectively, who
passed away while he was in the employment of respondents on
08.06.2000, was working as a permanent loader with the respondents. As a
sequel of above, the petitioner no. 1 applied to the respondents in the year
2000 for grant of appointment in favour of her eldest son Indresh Rambrich
Nishad so also sought monthly monetary compensation from the
respondents to which she is statutorily entitled till employment is provided
to her son vide letter dated 04.03.2002.
Subsequent thereto, the petitioner no. 1 vide communication
dated 16.10.2003 requested for grant of appointment in favour of her
WP-5417-2017(J).odt 3
youngest son viz. Avinash-petitioner no. 2 herein. As no reply was received
from the respondents, several reminders were sent which were in vain. On
08.05.2017, the respondent no. 3 issued the impugned letter thereby
rejecting the claim of the petitioner no. 2 for appointment on compassionate
basis on the ground that the petitioner no. 2 was less than 12 years of age
on the date of death of his father which precludes his name being taken on
the live roster as the minimum age required as per the provisions of the
National Coal Wage Agreement-VI (for short ‘NCWA’) is 12 years. The said
communication is assailed in the present petition.
3. While questioning the impugned communication dated
08.05.2017 Shri. Gupta the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would urge that due to the delay on the part of the respondents, who kept
the applications for appointment on compassionate basis so also for
monetary compensation pending for 17 years, has led to the petitioners
living in penury and facing unfathomable hardship. The petitioner no. 1 who
is the widow of the deceased employee is an illiterate woman and after
taking assistance from the people around her and the representative of trade
union, she has made more than 15 representations to the respondents to
which no reply was received except for the impugned communication. As far
as the grant of employment to her youngest son viz. petitioner no. 2 is
concerned, even the elder son originally for whom the employment was
requested before passing away on 22.02.2014 gave his no objection which is
placed on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further claim
that after obtaining information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 it
WP-5417-2017(J).odt 4
came to light that the name of the petitioner no. 2 was recommended for
employment by the letter dated 26.03.2012 by the three-member committee
which was constituted on 12.02.2009, however, the said letter was never
supplied to the petitioners. In view of the above recommendation, there was
no reason to refuse employment to the petitioner no.2 as the committee
constituted by the respondents themselves had recommended the name of
the petitioner no. 2. He would further urge that the respondents have
themselves violated their own policy viz. NCWA-VI Chapter-IX by neither
providing employment nor providing monetary compensation. So as to
substantiate his contention, our attention is invited to Clause 9.5.0 (ii) of the
aforesaid policy wherein it is stated that in case the female dependent is
below the age of 45 years she will have the option to either accept the
monetary compensation or employment. The petitioner no. 1 at the time of
the death of her husband was of 38 years of age, she was not offered either
of the above. Our attention is also invited to the letter dated 14.03.2001
issued by the respondent no. 3 wherein it is decided that in cases where
sanction is delayed beyond three months for providing employment,
monetary compensation equivalent to the amount offered to the female
dependents as the case may be, would be paid till the approval of
employment is conveyed. Therefore, the petitioner no. 2 is entitled for
appointment on compassionate ground in lieu of his father and till the
employment is granted, the petitioners are entitled for monetary
compensation. So as to substantiate the aforesaid arguments, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex
Court in the matter of Subhadra Versus Ministry of Coal and another
WP-5417-2017(J).odt 5
reported in (2018) 11 SCC 201 and Balbir Kaur and another Versus Steel
Authority of India reported in (2000) 6 SCC 493.
4. Mr. Samudra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent
nos. 1, 2 and 3 taking an exception to the submissions of the learned counsel
for the petitioner would support the impugned communication dated
08.05.2017 and claim that at the outset the petition suffers from delay and
laches so also suppression of material facts and the same is liable to be
dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondents would urge that both the
reliefs as sought by the petitioners are not tenable in view of the provisions
of their policy viz. NCWA-VI. There are serious discrepancies in the names of
the legal heirs as were entered in the service register as per the information
given by deceased employee where the name of petitioner no. 2 is not
mentioned and Form PS-3 which was filled in by the deceased employee
which mentions particulars of his family where the name of the eldest son is
absent. He would further urge that the petitioner no. 2 being of less than 12
years of age on the date on which his father passed away creates an
embargo for his name to be kept on live roster as per Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of
Chapter IX of NCWA-VI. So as to substantiate the aforesaid argument,
reliance is place on various decisions rendered by this Court in Writ Petition
No. 3803/2009, Writ Petition No. 3936/2008, Writ Petition No. 3890/2009,
etc. It is also claimed that even the petitioner no. 1 is not entitled for
monetary compensation as she had opted for providing employment initially
to her elder son and subsequently to petitioner no. 2. As far as the
recommendations dated 26.03.2012 is concerned, it is urged that it is
WP-5417-2017(J).odt 6
merely an opinion of the committee without examining provisions of NCWA-
IV and the competent authority has not accepted the said recommendations.
Lastly, he would submit that the respondents during the pendency of this
petition have decided to pay monetary compensation to the petitioner no. 1
in terms of Clause 9.5.0(ii)(iv) of NCWA-VI from the date of her entitlement
pursuant to her application dated 31.10.2003 till she attains the age of 60
years instead of providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner
no. 2.
5. We have considered the rival claims.
6. The deceased husband of the petitioner no.1 widow, Mr.
Rambrich, was working on permanent post of loader in the underground
mine with the respondents who suffered untimely death on 08.06.2000
leaving behind total five legal heirs including the petitioners herein. The
petitioner no.1 widow has stated that she was blessed with four children out
of the marriage with deceased Rambrich and all of them were fully
dependent on deceased Rambrich.
7. The National Coal Wage Agreement (for short, ‘the NCWA’)
provides for the service conditions of all the non-executive employees and
binds the respondents. By way of social security measures, a provision is
made in the NCWA for grant of employment to the dependent of the
deceased employee and the monetary compensation to the widow. It is
specifically stated that the deceased Rambrich, so also the petitioner no.1
are completely illiterate which could be inferred from the petition as the
WP-5417-2017(J).odt 7
petition bears the thumb impression of the petitioner no.1-widow. Similarly,
the deceased Rambrich has affixed his thumb impression in his service book
which was filled in by the respondent Employer, which narrates incomplete
information as the same is filled-in in English language. The name of initial
sponsored candidate Indresh was not entered therein, however rest of the
details are rightly incorporated. The petitioner no.1 widow, who was
illiterate, initially sponsored the name of Indresh, which later on she
cancelled as he started living separately and was not willing to shoulder the
responsibility of the entire family which prompted her to sponsor the name
of petitioner no.2- Avinash in 2003.
8. The aforesaid factual matrix is borne out of the record as could
be inferred from Annexure-2. The Annexures 2 and 3 are the extract of the
service book and the application for grant of compassionate appointment to
the petitioner no. 2, so also the reminders forwarded by her from time to
time. In fact, in 2003 itself the petitioner no.1 not only has sought
compassionate appointment but also the maintenance allowance to which
otherwise she was entitled to.
The fact that the petitioner no.1 is illiterate is accepted by the
respondents in their communication dated 21/23.04.2011 which is
produced at Annexure-7. Apart from above, the proposal of Avinash, the
petitioner no.2, was not appropriately examined and verified by the Area
Committee. The relevant extract of the inter-department communication
between the respondents reads as under:
“….. In the list of family particulars mentioned in the performs
for considering employment to dependent, name of sahri
WP-5417-2017(J).odt 8(Shri) Indresh and Shri Ramnivas are mentioned, but name of
Shri Avinash is not mentioned. Area has not verified these
facts. Moreover, there is no Area Committee’s report
examining the proposal.
You are, therefore, requested to kindly arranged to get
the case re-examined by area committee in totality and submit
report with recommendations, for placing the matter before
Competent Authority for decision.”
9. In spite of above, from the communication issued by the
Deputy Manager, it appears that the respondents have not taken any action
in the matter though subsequent thereto again representations were moved
by the petitioners. A Committee consisting of Chairman and two members
i.e. Senior Manager (Personnel) and Senior Manager(Finance), was
constituted for examining the case of the petitioners for grant of
compassionate appointment. In the said communication, it is specifically
recommended by the Committee that it has agreed to send the proposal for
providing the employment to the younger son Avinash, who has already
submitted relevant papers for providing employment. The Committee has
after scrutinizing the documents found the same to be true and genuine and
as such recommended the candidature of the petitioner no.2-Avinash for
grant of employment as a dependent in place of deceased father. Such
recommendations of the Committee were never given effect to by the
respondents for the reasons best known to them. Even subsequent request
of the petitioner no.2 in 2013 onwards through Trade Union was not
responded to.
10. As such, the following facts emerge:
(1) The death of deceased Rambrich on 08.06.2000.
WP-5417-2017(J).odt 9
(2) The proposal for grant of compassionate
employment/appointment to the dependent was forwarded on
05.08.2000 which was forwarded by the Field Officer to the Head
Quarter, Western Coalfields Limited, on 16.03.2001.
(3) The elder son Indresh, whose recommendation was
made, expired on 22.02.2014 and the candidature of the petitioner
no.2- Avinash, younger son of the deceased employee, was duly
recommended by the High Level Committee for grant of
compassionate employment.
(4) It is only after 17 years the respondents have realized
that though there are recommendations by the High Level
Committee, the petitioner no.2 is disqualified for the purpose of grant
of compassionate employment.
Once there was a strong recommendation of the case of the
petitioner no.2, we failed to understand as to what prompted the
respondents not to grant the compassionate appointment and also the
compensation as was prayed.
11. Clause 9.5.0 of the NCWA-IV Scheme, which is relevant, is
reproduced below:
“9.5.0 Employment/Monetary compensation to female
dependant Provision of employment/monetary compensation
to female dependants of workmen who die while in service
and who are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0
above would be regulated as under:
(i) In case of death due to mine accident, the female
dependant would have the option to either accept the
monetary compensation of Rs. 4,000/- per month or
employment irrespective of her age.
(ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to
cause other than mine accident and medical unfitness under
Clause 9.4.0, if the female dependant is below the age of 45
WP-5417-2017(J).odt 10years she will have the option either to accept the monetary
compensation of Rs. 3,000/- per month or employment.
In case the female dependant is above 45 years of age
she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to
employment.
(iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other
reasons or medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if no
employment has been offered and the male dependant of the
concerned worker is 12 years and above in age, he will be kept
on a live roster and would be provided employment
commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains
the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is
on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary
compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii) above. This will
be effective from 1.1.2000.
(iv) Monetary Compensation wherever applicable, would be
paid till the female dependant attains the age of 60 years.
(v) The existing rate of monetary compensation will
continue. The matter will be further discussed in the
Standardisation Committee and finalised.
Note: In the cases of TISCO, the matter would be settled at
bipartite level.”
12. Reverting back to the date on which the petitioner no.1
husband died, it can be noticed that she was vigilant enough to exercise her
claim in the manner prescribed by the respondents in NCWA-IV. It has also
come on record that the financial condition of the petitioner was already not
very good but even then, she managed to make those representations which
is a testimony to the fact that she tried her level best to gain co-operation
from the respondents but it was all in vain. The delay caused cannot be
attributed to the petitioner no.1, who is an illiterate woman, considering the
fact that over the period of 17 years she made several representations which
WP-5417-2017(J).odt 11
are placed on record in order to gain clarity with respect to her claim. There
is a reason to believe that social beneficial legislation is a recurring cause.
13. The respondents in their reply have contended that in the year
2003 the petitioner no.1 applied for grant of appointment to the petitioner
no. 2 in place of her elder son which is not permissible as he was below the
prescribed age on the date of death of his father. This contention cannot be
accepted for the reason that, had the respondents processed the claim in
respect of her elder son in a timely manner, such a situation would not have
arisen at the first place. Further the fact remains, that the three-member
committee constituted by the respondents has recommended on 26.03.2012
for giving employment to the petitioner no. 2. We cannot be oblivious to the
fact that the petitioner no.1 who was in dire need of financial assistance and
in the alternative compassionate appointment for her son was left helpless
due to inaction of the respondents. This conduct is not just negligence on
the part of the respondents but also constitutes mental harassment. Had the
claim of the petitioner no.1 was decided within time, she would have at
least gained clarity as to the position of her claim and even if she was not
eligible for compassionate appointment she would have received the
appropriate monetary compensation as an alternate remedy. The least that
was expected of the respondents was to reply to her representations in a
time bound manner and grant her monetary relief as a stop-gap measure.
Not only did the respondents not process her claim but they did not even
deem it important to at least reply to the communications made by her.
WP-5417-2017(J).odt 12
14. The learned counsel for the respondents has also contended
that there are lot of discrepancies as to the names and age of the legal heirs,
we have to be sensitive to the fact that the petitioner no. 1, an illiterate
woman, is trying to sustain herself and her family after the death of her
husband who was the sole bread earner. Even then she made an effort to
make several representations to the respondents in order to find a way to
improve her financial condition. We cannot be so stringent and go into
technicality as the same would cause injustice to the petitioners. We have to
be sensitive to the Apex Court’s observations in Balbir Kaur (supra) in
paragraph no. 19, which reads thus:
“19. ……..We are not called upon to assess the situation but
the fact remains that having due regard to the constitutional
philosophy to decry a compassionate employment opportunity
would neither be fair nor reasonable. The concept of social
justice is the yardstick to the justice administration system or
the legal justice and as Roscoe Pound pointed out the greatest
virtue of law is in its adaptability and flexibility and thus it
would be otherwise an obligation for the law courts also to ap-
ply the law depending upon the situation since the law is
made for the society and whatever is beneficial for the society,
the endeavour of the law court would be to administer justice
having due regard in that direction.”
15. The whole object of granting compassionate employment by an
employer being intended is to enable the family members of a deceased or
an incapacitated employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis,
appointments on compassionate ground should be made immediately to
redeem the family in distress [ Canara Bank Versus Ajithkumar GK , Civil
Appeal No. 255/2025]. Further, the Apex Court in State of West Bengal
WP-5417-2017(J).odt 13
Versus Debabrata Tiwari and others reported in [2023 SCC OnLine SC 219]
has opined that there is a sense of urgency in dealing with the matters of
compassionate appointment because failure of the same would frustrate the
object of the scheme and the financial condition of the family of the
deceased employee at the time of his death is the primary consideration that
ought to guide the authorities’ decision. The aforesaid object stood
frustrated due to the inaction on the part of the respondents. Considering
the financial condition of the petitioner this was a fit case to at least
consider the case of the petitioners for compassionate appointment. Not
only have the respondents lost sight of the very object of their own scheme
viz. NCWA-IV but have also failed to pay heed to the grievance of the
petitioners.
16. As such, from the NCWA, it is apparent that the petitioner
no.1-widow was entitled for the compensation she being below 45 years age
on the date of death of her husband, who was in the employment, viz.
08.06.2000. That being so, she should have been paid monetary
compensation from the date of death of her husband i.e. 08.06.2000. As
such, we hold that the respondents who have volunteered to pay the
compensation which otherwise is due and payable since last more than 24
years should be paid immediately as per the NCWA and for non-payment,
the same shall carry interest @7% per annum. The said amount be
deposited by the respondents in the account of the petitioner no.1 after
obtaining her account details and such act/exercise be completed within a
period of eight weeks from today.
WP-5417-2017(J).odt 14
17. We are required to be sensitive to the fact that the respondent-
employer is the Government of India Undertaking and is into the
profiteering business and its conduct of not paying the statutory
compensation to the petitioner no.1 for last more than 24 years speaks about
voluminous, negligent and callous approach on its part. This would have
prompted us to direct an enquiry in the matter and disciplinary action
against the Highest Officer.
18. The aforesaid observations are required to be made in view of
the fact that in spite of the notice of the present writ petition was served on
the respondents way back in 2017, they have chosen not to take corrective
measures and immediately grant compensation to the petitioners. The
approach of the respondents speaks of/about negligence, inhuman and
irresponsible for non-payment of timely compensation to the widow i.e the
petitioner no.1. The respondents have nothing to lose as they are contesting
the litigation at the cost of the public exchequer. The cost of litigation could
also have been recovered from the salary of the respondents-Officers who
have decided to oppose the prayer for grant of even compensation to which
otherwise the petitioner no.1 is entitled to.
19. Rather, the factual matrix of the case in hand prompts us to
pass further order in line with the approach of the Supreme Court in the
matter of Subhadra (supra). As such, we further direct the respondents to
provide employment to the petitioner no.2 on Class-IV post or such other
WP-5417-2017(J).odt 15
post as commensurate with his qualifications, within 8 weeks from today.
On account of loss of employment, we direct the respondents
to provide compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs.Three Lakhs) to be deposited
in the account of the petitioner no.1.
’20. In the aforesaid background, we quash and set aside the
impugned communication dated 08.05.2017.
21. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
Andurkar.
Signed by: Jayant S. Andurkar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/05/2025 12:08:46
[ad_2]
Source link