Jharkhand High Court
Ms Central Coalfields Limited Through ... vs Podin Devi on 26 July, 2016
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh, Shree Chandrashekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 150 of 2014
with
I.A. No. 3227 of 2015
M/s Central Coalfields Limited
through Sri Birendra Trivedi, G.M. (Admn.), Darbhanga House,
PONCDC Campus, PSKotwali, Ranchi .................. Appellant
Versus
Podin Devi, W/o Late Shankar Yadav, R/o Vill Gharvatand,
POTenughat, PSPeterbar, Distt.Bokaro.................. Respondents
......
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
......
For the AppellantCCL : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate
Mr. B. V. Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Anubha Rawat Choudhary, Advocate
......
Order No. 08 /Dated : 26th July, 2016
Per Virender Singh, C.J. :
I.A. No. 3227 of 2015
1. Since Mrs. Anubha Rawat Choudhary, learned counsel appearing
for the respondentwrit petitioner has not raised any serious objection in
allowing the instant application filed for condonation of delay of 299 days,
we hereby, allow the instant application and condone the said delay in
filing the accompanied appeal.
2. I.A. No. 3227 of 2015 stands disposed of accordingly.
L.P.A. No. 150 of 2014
1. We now take up the main appeal on board for its final
consideration.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for
the respondent.
3. Aggrieved of the impugned order dated 01.05.2013 of the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4946 of 2011, the appellant Central Coalfields
Limited (hereinafter to be referred as C.C.L.) had preferred the instant
appeal on 05.04.2014. Record reveals that the instant appeal was
dismissed on the strength of the peremptory order dated 09.07.2014 for
2
want of removal of the office defects. The appellant thereafter, moved
C.M.P. No. 283 of 2014 for restoration of the main appeal which application
was allowed by the Court on 14.05.2015.
4. The husband of the respondentwrit petitioner namely Shankar
Yadav was an employee with the employer C.C.L. He was a Piece Rated
Worker at Swang Colliery of the appellantC.C.L. He stopped attending his
duties at the said Colliery from 25.02.2002 in which regard an entry was
made at Station Diary maintained at P.S. Peterbar. It was an entry of
missing of Shankar Yadav. Till 13.03.2009 his whereabouts were not
known on which date the concerned police station made an endorsement
stating, 'could not be found'. It needs to be mentioned here that the name
of the employee Shankar Yadav was struck off from the roll by the
appellant on 05.03.2009.
5. The respondentwrit petitioner filed a Civil Suit being T.S. No. 20
of 2009 in the Court of Munsif, Bermo at Tenughat for a declaration that
her husband (Shankar Yadav) had died civil death. The said Suit was
decreed by the Court concerned on 23.01.2010 by declaring Shankar Yadav
as dead. It is thereafter, the respondentwrit petitioner moved an
application before the Project Officer, Swang Colliery of the appellant for
appointment of her son Manoj Kr. Yadav, which application faced rejection
vide Letter No. 2738 dated 02.07.2011. The respondentwrit petitioner
thereafter, moved the Writ Court through the medium of W.P.(S) No. 4946
of 2011, which now stands allowed quashing the aforesaid order dated
02.07.2011being without any legal basis with a direction to the appellant C.C.L to consider the claim of the respondentwrit petitioner for arrears of deathcumretiral dues and other benefits payable to her after death of her husband and also to pass an order of appointing her son (Manoj Kr. Yadav) within a stipulated period of six weeks. Compensatory interest @ 10% per 3 annum has also been awarded in favour of the respondentwrit petitioner. Hence the present Letters Patent Appeal.
6. At the very outset, Mrs. Choudhary, after getting instructions from the respondentwrit petitioner who has come present in person, states that the appellantC.C.L has already given all the monetary benefits to her to the tune of about Rs. 4 lakhs. She further states that the respondentwrit petitioner has filed a contempt petition being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 725 of 2014, with regard to compassionate appointment in which pursuant to the notice a show cause has been filed by the appellantC.C.L taking the plea that a discussion was held on 19.06.2013 which was communicated vide letter dated 09.12.2013 with regard to giving compassionate appointment in such like cases and it has been decided that no employment to the dependent of missing employee (deemed death) is to be considered. She further states that the appellantC.C.L has relied upon that discussion note in the instant appeal also which is available at Annexure7. She has drawn our attention to the said note.
7. Mr. A.K.Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellantC.C.L submitted that in terms of Clause9.3.2 of the National Coal Wage AgreementV (NCWA) the employment to the dependent of the worker can be provided only if the worker has died in service whereas, in the present case the husband of the respondentwrit petitioner went missing from duty from February, 2002 and when his whereabouts were not known for long 7 years, he was declared dead in which regard although the respondent obtained a decree of declaration in her favour, that would not bind the appellant to provide compassionate appointment to the son of the respondentwrit petitioner.
We do not find substance in the submission of Mr. Mehta. Admittedly, the husband of the respondentwrit petitioner remained on the 4 role of the appellantC.C.L for long 7 years and his name was struck off from the roll of the company on 05.03.2009, i.e. after 7 years. This by itself shows that in the records of the appellantC.C.L the husband of the respondentwrit petitioner was shown as employee of the appellant. The declaration got by the respondent after 7 years by the Court concerned also confirms the date of civil death of her husband as 05.03.2009. From that angle also it is a case of death in harness. The view taken by the learned Writ Court on this aspect, thus, does not deserve to be disturbed.
8. Mr. Mehta has also relied upon Annexure7 a communication dated 09.12.2013, which reflects that a decision has been taken on 19.06.2013 to the effect that the son of the respondentwrit petitioner namely Manoj Kr. Yadav would not be given compassionate appointment.
The decision taken by the Coal India Limited as reflected in the communication dated 09.12.2013 (Annexure7), in our considered view would not change the fate of the present case. Even otherwise, this decision has been taken much later after the respondentwrit petitioner had earned a favourable judgment. Further, by an executive decision the provision of Clause9.3.2 of the National Coal Wage AgreementV (NCWA) or the decision of the Court already rendered cannot be overturned.
9. Resultantly, the appeal on hand filed by the appellant C.C.L deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits. We however, grant another six weeks' time to the appellant for compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge affirmed by us. Ordered accordingly.
(Virender Singh, C.J) (Shree Chandrashekhar, J) Mukund/