Jharkhand High Court
Nagiya Devi vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd on 3 February, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 (2) AJR 645
Author: S. N. Pathak
Bench: S. N. Pathak
1 W.P.(S) No. 1763 OF 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1763 of 2008
Nagiya Devi ... ... ... Petitioner
V e r s u s
1. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its ChairmancumManaging, Koyla
Bhawan, Dhanbad.
2. General Manager, Kusunda, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad.
3. Project Officer, M/s. BCCL, Gonudih Colliery, Kusunda, Dhanbad.
... ... ... Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate.
07/03.02.2017. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In the instant writ application the widow has knocked door of this Court for a direction upon the respondents to pay due salary of her late husband for the period from 16.12.1995 to 16.12.1999, total amounting to Rs.2,89,158.61 for the period of wrongful dismissal of her husband who was illegally dismissed from the service on the allegation of false charges w.e.f. 16.12.1995 which was later on quashed by order of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand dated 22.09.2003 making him entitled for payment of due salary.
3. From the factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that husband of the petitioner Late Rampati Das was appointed on 03.03.1971 and was employed in the post of Trammer at Gondudih Collier of Kusunda Area in the district of Dhanbad. He was the permanent worker of M/s. BCCL and had to superannuate from the service in the year 1999 on attaining the age of 60 years. It has been stated that some charges were levelled against Late husband of the petitioner that his son was involved in a criminal case. The allegation against the son was that some of the employees of the respondent - Company were assaulted by him and for that an FIR was instituted against his son. Against some other employees of the respondent - Company, similar charges were levelled that their sons were also involved in assaulting the employees of respondent - Company. It has been further stated that the petitioner's husband was terminated from the service w.e.f. 14.12.1995 by standing order of the Company for alleged misconduct. The said termination order of Late husband of the petitioner was challenged before the Hon'ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi vide C.W.J.C. No. 483 of 2 W.P.(S) No. 1763 OF 2008 1996 on the ground that he had committed no offence or misconduct rather it was committed by his son. During pendency of the writ petition, the said workman unfortunately died on 02.04.2000 and subsequently, he was substituted by present petitioner in place of her husband. The Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand, vide its order dated 22.09.2003, allowed the writ petition by quashing the order of termination of the petitioner' husband with a liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law.
4. Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after quashing of the order of termination, the deceased - workman was legally entitled to be reinstated in service with all backwages and consequential benefits as the termination order was termed to be illegal and improper. Advancing his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being the legally wedded wife and nominee of the deceased - workman, was entitled for the entire benefits for which she represented to the Company on 17.12.2003 and 25.02.2004 annexing all the papers for payment of legally payable dues of her late husband and salary for the period w.e.f. 14.12.1995 to the scheduled date of retirement on attaining age of 60 years but the respondent - Company did not pay any heed to the grievance of the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Kumar further submitted that the petitioner is entitled for receiving backwages of her late husband for the period of his wrongful dismissal and the respondent authorities are harassing widow and old aged lady and by denying the backwages and the retiral benefits, the respondents are acting in a complete arbitrary manner which amounts to violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India.
5. Per contra, Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - BCCL vehemently opposes prayer of the petitioner and submits that there may be some disputes regarding petitioner's claim as there may be some other claimants which is not known and as such, the legal dues of the petitioner which accrued to her on account of quashing of the order of termination, has not been paid.
6. The arguments of learned counsel for the respondents - BCCL is not well founded. There cannot be presumptions for not making the legally payable dues to a widow. A widow cannot be harassed for payment of legally admitted dues of her husband. It transpires that the termination order was 3 W.P.(S) No. 1763 OF 2008 quashed as back as on 22.09.2003. The present petitioner made representation to the respondents on 17.12.2003 and, thereafter, on several date i.e. 25.02.2004 and other dates. The respondents - BCCL slept over the matter for 13 long years and have not taken any steps for making payment to the widow, the benefits accrued to her on account of death of her husband and as of quashing of the termination order.
7. Considering aforesaid aspects of the matter, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to pay entire legally admitted dues of petitioner's husband along with arrears of salary amounting to Rs.2,89,158.61 i.e. for the period from 16.12.1995 to 16.12.1999 as it is apparent from the records that the respondents - BCCL did not challenge the order dated 22.09.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 483 of 1996 and C.W.J.C. No. 1003 of 1996 and as such the order attained finality. No further steps were taken by the respondents - BCCL after the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in the year 2003. Thirteen long years have elapsed since the date of order. This is a glaring example in which a widow has been unnecessarily harassed at the hands of the respondents - BCCL for getting legally admitted dues of her late husband.
8. In view of aforesaid circumstances, this Court cannot shut its eyes and be a mute spectator and as such, this Court directs the respondent no. 1 - ChairmancumManaging Director, BCCL to make additional payment of Rs.1 Lac. for harassing a widow for 13 long years. The respondents are further directed to release all the dues forthwith along with statutory interest @6% per annum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
9. Let a copy of this order be handed over to learned counsel for the respondents - BCCL for taking immediate steps.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition is allowed.
Anjali/RC (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)