KESHAR BAI Vs. WESTERN COALFIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 19.05.2010 said to be issued by respondents rejecting the application made by the petitioner for payment of monetary compensation. It is alleged that the husband of the petitioner by name Girija Prasad was an employee of the respondents, who died while in service on 15.02.2000. On account of his death, the petitioner made an application on 12.06.2000 seeking monetary compensation. Such an application was not considered, though forwarded to the higher authorities, and subsequently the petitioner was required to make yet another application. When nothing was done by the respondents, reminders were sent and ultimately the order impugned was issued intimating the petitioner that her application has been rejected as the same was made after 10 years of death of Ex-employee of the respondents. It is contended that in view of the provisions made in the National Coal Wage Agreement, applicable to the employees of the respondents, there was a specific provision made for payment of Rs.3000/- per month to a female dependant of an employee, who died in harness, as monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. It is specifically provided that aforesaid compensation at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month would be paid till the age of 60 years. It is contended that since the application was made pursuant to the said agreement, which was made effective with effect from 01.01.2000, it was necessary on the part of the respondents to look into the said application within time and to decide the same. However, keeping the same pending for such a long period and ultimately rejecting on the lame excuse that the application was made after a period of 10 years of death of Ex-employee is wholly unjustified and illegal. The petitioner has, thus, claimed relief to the following effect :

(2.) Upon service of notices of the writ petition, the respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner and have contended that in fact there was a dispute in between the petitioner and one Kachra Bai, who was claiming to be the widow of said employee Girija Prasad. Since a case was filed for grant of succession certificate in the Court of I Civil Judge, Class-I, Chhindwara, wherein the petitioner herein was made non-applicant and the said matter remained pending up to 17.06.2004, which ultimately was decided on a compromise out of Court between the parties of litigation, an application was subsequently made by the petitioner for grant of monetary compensation in the year 2006. After processing the said application since it was found that death had taken place much before and for a long period the petitioner has survived without any monetary compensation, it would not be necessary to grant the monetary assistance to the petitioner and as such the application was rightly rejected. It is contended that the petitioner under the mutual agreement with said Kachra Bai has received the money from the respondents payable towards the service dues of deceased employee and, therefore, she has the means of livelihood and no monetary compensation whatsoever was required to be paid. Considering these aspects, the order impugned has rightly been passed and the claim of the petitioner is rejected. It is further contended that there are disputed facts, which need to be proved by adducing evidence and, therefore, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable in respect of such monetary claim. It is further contended that looking to the law laid-down by the Apex Court as also by this Court, the claim made by the petitioner is hopelessly barred by limitation and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.