Orissa High Court
Jyotshna Rani Gadnayak vs The Chairman Cum Md on 12 November, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.2601 of 2023
Jyotshna Rani Gadnayak ..... Petitioner
Mr. S.D. Routray, Advocate
-versus-
The Chairman Cum MD, ..... Opposite Parties
MCL, Sambalpur & Ors. Mr. S.D. Das, Sr. Advocate
along with
Mr. H. Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
12.11.2025 Order No.12
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2.Heard Mr. S.D. Routray, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 1 along with Mr. H. Mohanty, learned counsel.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.02.01.2023 so passed by Opp. Party No. 5 under Annexure-15. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment under the provision of Rehabilitation Assistant Scheme so floated by Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd. (in short MCL) was rejected.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner's father while in service, died on 16.02.2019. It is not disputed that on such death of the deceased employee, claim was initially made by the son of the deceased to get the benefit of compassionate appointment with due submission of the application.
4.1. Even though the Claimant-Son was asked by the Screening Committee to appear before the Committee and to submit the Page 1 of 7. documents, but the same was never acted upon by the Claimant-Son. Accordingly, MCL vide letter dtd.03.12.2021 when asked the wife of the deceased to accept the monetary compensation and to submit documents for such compensation in lieu of employment, wife of the deceased employee made a prayer to consider the claim of the present Petitioner, who happens to be the married daughter at the relevant point of time, for consideration of her claim to get the benefit of Rehabilitation Appointment.
4.2. It is contended that such claim of the present Petitioner was not only entertained by MCL but also it was processed. However, ultimately the same was rejected vide the impugned communication dtd.31.01.2022 under Annexure-11, on the ground that, married daughter in terms of the provisions contained under Clause 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (in short NCWA), is not eligible to get the benefit. Clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA reads as follows:-
"9.3.0. Employment to one dependent of an employee dying while in service, as being implemented in "10th Wage Agreement for CIL and SCCL" shall continue on Basic Wage of Cat. I as trainee for six months. Other issues of dependent employment including qualification on appointment shall be deliberated in Standardization Committee of JBCCI-XI."
4.3. It is contended that challenging such rejection of the Petitioner's claim, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 21083 of 2022. This Court vide order dtd.14.11.2022 under Annexure-13 while quashing the impugned rejection, directed the Opp. Parties to consider the Petitioner's claim afresh, if a detailed application is made in that regard.
Page 2 of 7.4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 14.11.2022, Petitioner made a detailed representation before Opp. Party No. 5 under Annxure-14. However, such claim of the Petitioner was rejected once again, vide the impugned order dtd.2/3.01.2023 under Annexure-15 of Opp. Party No. 5, on the ground that Petitioner since has become a divorcee having taken divorce on 09.09.2021, as per the provisions contained under Clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA, she is not eligible to get the benefit.
4.5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that present Petitioner made the application to get the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on 10.12.2021 and by the time she made such an application, she had already taken the divorce with passing of a decree of divorce by the competent civil court on 09.09.2021. But on the ground that Petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased and accordingly not entitled to get the benefit in terms of Clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA, her claim was rejected vide the impugned communication dtd.31.01.2022 under Annexure-11. This Court vide order dd.14.11.2022 when directed the Opp. Parties to reconsider the Petitioner's claim, the same has been rejected with a different plea that the Petitioner since has become a divorcee w.e.f.09.09.2021, as per Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA, Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit.
4.6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the son of the deceased never cooperated and appeared to get the benefit before the Screening Committee, Petitioner's application was not only entertained but also was processed all through. But on Page 3 of 7. different plea, such claim is being rejected by the authorities of MCL.
4.7. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Clause 9.3.0 of the Agreement, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner after her divorce is required to be taken as a divorcee or an unmarried daughter of the deceased and accordingly her claim comes within the provisions contained under Clause 9.3.0 of the Agreement.
4.8. It is also contended that the plea taken by the Opp. Parties that the Petitioner is not a dependant on the deceased employee as being the divorce daughter of the deceased, reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Khajani Devi & Ors., SLP(C) Diary No. 17706 of 2017. Hon'ble Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition, observed as follows:-
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the impugned order adopts a progressive and socially constructive approach to give benefits to daughter who was divorced treating her at parity with the un-married daughter. We fully agree with this view."
5. Mr. H. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties along with Mr. S.D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel, on the other hand contended that since Petitioner at the time of making her application, had already taken a divorce on 09.09.2021 and she was not a dependant at the time of death of the deceased employee on 16.02.2019, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of appointment under the R.A. Scheme, which was initially rejected Page 4 of 7. vide Annexure-11 and subsequently vide the present rejection available under Annexure-15, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 31083 of 2023.
5.1. Even though a submission was made and plea has been taken that Petitioner in view of the provisions contained under Clause 9.5.3 of the Agreement is not eligible, but it is fairly contended in the Bar that Petitioner is not coming within the definition of indirect dependent. Clause 9.5.3 of the NCWA reads as follows:-
"9.5.3. Generally the status of indirect dependent is reckoned at the date of death. However, in cases were daughter-in-law is widowed during the process of dependent employment of the son f the deceased employee, she can be considered for employment subject to fulfilment of all other rules applicable for dependent employment."
5.2. It is also contended that since the son of the deceased who made the application and was called to appear for verification of documents, never appeared, application by the present Petitioner on the face of such application made by the son of the deceased, is also not entertainable. However, since it is found that the Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit, her claim has been rejected for the 2nd time, and it requires no interference.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that on the death of the deceased employee on 16.02.2019, son of the deceased made an application and his application was considered at different level. However, since the son of the deceased never appeared for verification of the documents, wife of the deceased when was given Page 5 of 7. an option to make an application to get monetary compensation in lieu of employment, the present Petitioner came into picture by making an application on 10.12.2021 through her mother.
6.1. It is found that initially Petitioner's claim was rejected on the ground that Petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased vide Annexure-11. The said rejection was interfered with by this Court in its order dtd.14.11.2022 and Petitioner was permitted to make a fresh application before the Opp. Parties. However, claim made by the Petitioner in terms of the said order of this Court has again been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.2/3.01.2023 on the ground that Petitioner since is a divorcee w.e.f.09.09.2021 and she was not a dependent on her father at the time of his death, she is not eligible to get the benefit in terms of the provisions contained under Clause 9.3.0 of the Agreement.
6.2. This Court after going through the provisions contained under Clause 9.3.0 of the Agreement and the fact that on the face of the application made by the son of the deceased, the application of the present Petitioner was entertained when the son did not cooperate for verification of the documents, is of the view that the ground on which Petitioner's claim was rejected vide the impugned order, is not sustainable in the eye of law. Placing reliance on the decision cited by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner's claim is required to be considered and allowed by the Opp. Parties. Therefore, this Court while quashing the impugned rejection, passed vide order dtd.2/3.01.2023 under Annxure-15 of Opp. Party No. 4, directs the said authority to take appropriate step in providing appointment to the Petitioner under the provisions of the Rehabilitation Assistance Page 6 of 7. Scheme, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:29:45 Page 7 of 7.