Jharkhand High Court
Rohit Kumar vs Central Coalfields Limited Through Its ... on 27 July, 2023
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2934 of 2020
----
1. Rohit Kumar.
2. Abhijeet Kumar. ......Petitioners Versus
1. Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi.
2. Director (Personnel) Central Coalfields Limited, having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi.
3. General Manager (MP& IR) Central Coalfields Limited having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi.
4. General Manager, Barka Sayal Area, Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. Sayal, "D', P.S. Patratu, District-Ramgarh.
5. The Project Officer, Urimari Project, Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. Saunda 'D', P.S. Patratu, District-Ramgarh.
6. Regional Commissioner, CMPF-1, 4th floor, RIADA Bhawan, P.O. Lowadih, P.S. Namkum, Ranchi.
7. Sri Sohan Ram. ....Respondents
----
Coram: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Uday Prakash, Advocate
For the CCL : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
For the CMPF : None
--------
07/27-7-2023 Heard Mr. Uday Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.
Swati Shalini, learned counsel appearing for the CCL. No one appears on behalf of the respondent-C.M.P.F.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondent no. 5 to deduct 50% amount from the monthly wage of respondent no. 7 who obtained employment in M/s Central Coalfields Ltd on compassionate ground. Petitioners have also prayed for a direction upon the respondent no. 5 to allow the petitioners to fill up their respective CMPF claim forms and process the same for settlement to the respondent no. 6.
3. It has been submitted by Mr. Uday Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioners are the grandsons of the deceased employee- Barti Devi and they were fully dependent on the income of Barti Devi and therefore they are entitled to 50% of the wages which have been paid to the respondent no. 7 who is the younger son of Barti Devi and who had been granted compassionate appointment on account of her death. Learned counsel also submits that the CMPF is also not allowing to fill up the forms and as per the counter affidavit, an amount of Rs.14,59,300/- is lying in the CMPF office, which has not been disbursed to the petitioners. It has been stated that the respondent -2- no. 7 while being granted compassionate appointment had given an undertaking to maintain his family and since the petitioners are the dependents of the deceased employee, it was incumbent upon the respondent no. 7 to apportion the wages received on having been appointed in M/s Central Coalfields Limited.
4. Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL, has submitted that the petitioners being the grandsons of the deceased employee are not either direct dependents or indirect dependents in terms of the provisions of NCWA and therefore they are not entitled to any relief as prayed for.
5. The grandmother of the petitioners namely Barti Devi who was working in Urimari Project under Barka Sayal Area of M/s Central Coalfields Limited as a Wagon Loader had died in harness on 8.5.2017. Late Barti Devi had two sons namely Mohan Ram and Sohan Ram and the petitioners are the sons of Mohan Ram who had predeceased Barti Devi. The younger son of Barti Devi namely Sohan Ram had claimed compassionate appointment and he was granted so by M/s Central Coalfields Limited and he is at present working in M/s Central Coalfields Limited. The petitioners claim themselves to be the grandsons of late Barti Devi and has prayed for disbursement of 50% of the amount which is drawn as salary by Sohan Ram to them on account of the fact that they were dependent on their grandmother.
6. It appears that both the petitioners are majors and it is difficult to fathom as to how the petitioners being the grandsons of late Barti Devi were dependent on her income. Even the provisions of the NCWA do not include the grandsons of a deceased employee either as a direct dependent or is an indirect dependent.
7. In view of the above, therefore, the claim of the petitioners for being given 50% of the monthly wages, which is being paid to the respondent no. 7 to them appears to be misconceived and the said prayer is rejected.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed by CCL from which it appears that the gratuity amount has been apportioned between the claimants including the petitioners. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent CMPF reveals that an amount of Rs. 14,59,300/- is lying in the CMPF office for payment to the family members of Barti Devi. One part of the said CMPF claim has already been extended to Sohan Ram.
8. In view of the aforesaid, therefore, respondent no. 6-CMPF is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for apportionment of the amount of Rs. 14,59,300/- which is lying in the CMPF office between them after considering the fact as to whether they are eligible for being apportioned the aforesaid amount.
-3-9. This exercise shall be done by the respondent no. 6 within a period of four weeks from today.
10. In view of the above findings, therefore, this Court does not accede to the prayer of the petitioners for deducting 50% of the wages of respondent no. 7 and be paid to them. So far as the dues lying in CMPF office is concerned, the claim of the petitioners has to be considered in the manner indicated above by the respondent no. 6.
11. This writ petition is disposed of.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Rakesh/-