Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1001 (JHR)

Patras v. Central Coalfields Ltd. Ranchi

2014-09-22

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is seeking payment of Life Cover Scheme Rs. 25,000/-as also payment of monetary compensation @ Rs. 3,000/- per month due to his late mother namely Ali Saba on the death of his father, late Samuel, Ex-Miner of Bhurkunda Colliery under the respondent-CCL. The employee had died 03.01.2001 and the petitioner's mother also died on 21.02.2008. 3. The petitioner claims to be only son of the deceased employee and he is entitled to monetary compensation in terms of Para-9.3.2. read with clause 9.5.0. of NCWA. He is also seeking quashing of the order contained in Ref. No. 1371 of 04.01.2013 issued by the Deputy Manager, (Personnel), Bhurkunda, Annexure-11 to the writ petition where such claim has been rejected. 4. According to the petitioner, his mother had made representation for payment of monetary compensation on 02.02.2002. Reference has been made to the representation of the petitioner at Annexure-10 dated 15.03.2013 where such statement has been made. The petitioner preferred a writ petition after the death of his mother on 21.02.2008 being W.P. (S) No. 2550 of 2009 seeking claim of monetary compensation. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was earlier rejected vide Anneuxre-4/1 dated 12/16.07.2003 on the ground that he was 36 years of age and not eligible under NCWA W. P. (S) No. 2550 of 2009 was disposed of on 05.10.2012 by the learned Single Judge with a direction to the petitioner to move an appropriate application/representation before the respondents within 30 days whereupon appropriate decision would be taken on the same within stipulated time. Arrears found due be paid to the petitioner soon thereafter. The said claim has been rejected vide impugned order dated 17.07.2013, Annexure-11 indicating that he has made application after death of her mother and no such application had been made in that regard earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Dukhni Devi Vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. in W. P. (S) No. 5948 of 2010 vide judgment dated 29.10.2013. It is submitted that terms and conditions of clause-9.5.0. of the said judgment are social and welfare measure which should be read in manner which advances the course of justice. The petitioner's claim has been wrongly rejected by the respondents. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. in W. P. (S) No. 5948 of 2010 vide judgment dated 29.10.2013. It is submitted that terms and conditions of clause-9.5.0. of the said judgment are social and welfare measure which should be read in manner which advances the course of justice. The petitioner's claim has been wrongly rejected by the respondents. He has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Hira Devi in LPA No. 234 of 2012 vide judgment dated 02.01.2013 wherein also the learned Division Bench upheld of the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereunder directions were issued to grant relief to the writ petitioner/respondent-widow therein to pay monetary benefit from the date of death of husband of the petitioner, who died in the year 1998. 5. In the present case as per the respondents' categorical statements made at para-19, the petitioner's mother had never applied for monetary compensation instead the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment, which was rejected. It is submitted on their behalf that under the relevant provisions of NCWA in case of death due to cause other than Mine accident, if the female Dependant is below the age of 45 years she will have option to accept monetary compensation or employment in lieu thereof and that in case the female dependant is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment. As per the service excerpts of the deceased employee the age of widow Alisa Ba is shown as 45 years as on 01.04.1987 and therefore she was above 45 years on the date of death of her husband i.e. on 03.01.2001,therefore, she was only entitled to monetary compensation in terms of NCWA. However, it is stand of the respondent that the petitioner's mother had never applied for monetary compensation and the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected earlier. The payment of Life Cover Scheme has already been made as per the respondent. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the relevant records including the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the judgments relied upon by the petitioner of the other cases for the following reasons. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the relevant records including the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the judgments relied upon by the petitioner of the other cases for the following reasons. In the case of Dukhni Devi (Supra), she was widow whose claim for monetary compensation was rejected on the ground that her option was submitted in the year 2010 while she had attained 60 years in the year 2008 itself. Her claim for compassionate appointment was earlier rejected as she was over age. However, in the said case it was noticed that lady widow had moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5430 of 2004 where prayer for payment of monetary compensation was made in alternative in case the claim for compassionate appointment of her son-in-law was rejected. The respondents had also denied monetary compensation on ground that she had crossed 60 years age. However, considering the aforesaid facts that she had already made an application also in the said writ petition with an alternative prayer and the fact that the provisions of clause 9.5.0. are in the nature of social and welfare legislation under the Social Security Scheme, following the principle enumerated in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badshah Vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr. in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8596 of 2013 vide judgment dated 18.10.2014, in the context of social justice adjudication, this Court held that denial of monetary benefit to the said petitioner on the death of her husband simply on the ground that she had attained 60 years of age is not proper in the eye of law. In the present case, there are two distinguishable reasons; it is categorical stand of the respondents that no such application was made by the widow of the deceased employee during her life time for payment of monetary compensation till she passed away on 21.02.2008 nor such claim was made by the petitioner either. After her death, the claim has been made by the petitioner for payment of monetary compensation and the writ petition has been filed in the year 2009. When it has been rejected on the aforesaid ground, the present writ petition has once again been preferred. After her death, the claim has been made by the petitioner for payment of monetary compensation and the writ petition has been filed in the year 2009. When it has been rejected on the aforesaid ground, the present writ petition has once again been preferred. The Social Security Provisions under the NCWA provides for monetary compensation as provided under Clause-9.5.0. to the female dependant. In the present case, female dependant is no longer alive neither she had made such a claim during her life time. Therefore, it would amount to stretching the provisions of clause 9.5.0. of NCWA too far to the extent of being illogical to extend such benefit to present petitioner, who has made claim after the death of his mother. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Hira Devi (Supra) as well is, therefore, distinguishable. She was widow, who was pursuing her claim for compassionate appointment and monetary compensation too. After her claim for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that she was above 45 years of age, the claim of the said widow for monetary compensation was granted by the learned Single Judge and upheld by the learned Division Bench. Therefore, the ratio laid down in both judgments are not applicable to the petitioner's case. 7. In that view of the matter, no interference can be made in the present writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.