MAMATA MOHANTY Vs. CHAIRMAN COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's husband late Debakalyan Mohanty was working as a Senior Mining Engineer in the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (for short, 'S.E.C.L.'). Which is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited (for, short 'C.I.L.'). He was posted at Gevra Project of S.E.C.L in Madhya Pradesh (now Chhatishgarh). On 30.12.1995 late Debakalyan Mohanty died in harness. On 16.1.1996 the petitioner applied to the Chairman of C.I.L. for compassionate appointment. She was appointed in the post of Clerk Grade Ill in S.E.C.L. and posted at Gevra by order dated 10.10.1996. She joined in S.E.C.L. Gevra as Clerk Grade Ill on 14.11.1996. But thereafter, on her request, she was transferred to Mahanadi Coalfields Limited which is another subsidiary of C.I.L. and posted at Sambalpur as Clerk Grade Ill. She was then posted at Talcher as Clerk Grade Ill but she did not join at Talcher and instead, requested for monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment by her letter dated 27.9.1999. She was paid monetary compensation at the rate of Rs. 3000/ per month with effect from 1.1.1996 and at the rate of Rs. 4500/ per month with effect from 11.11.1999. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 23.12.1999 to the Chairman, C.I.L., Calcutta to pay the dues of her late husband detailed in the said letter dated 23.12.1999. But by letter dated 15.6.2000, the General Manager (MP and IR), C.I.L. intimated the petitioner that C.I.L. had taken up the matter with S.E.C.L. authorities and have been informed that her late husband was not entitled to any payment mentioned in the said letter dated 23.12.1999. A copy of the said letter dated 15.6.2000 of the General Manager (MP and IR), C.I.L. has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 1. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the said letter dated 15.6.2000 in Annexure 1 to the writ petition and for directing the opp. parties to pay the unpaid dues towards salary and other allowances of her late husband Debakalyan Mohanty. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the opp. parties to enhance the monthly monetary compensation of Rs. 9,000/ per month which was payable as monthly monetary compensation to dependent female of an Executive in E l Grade in lieu of employment or to employ the petitioner in the Executive E l Grade.

(2.) MR . S.N. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the guidelines on the scheme for monetary cash compensation in lieu of employment to female dependents of Executives have been laid down in the circular dated 8.4.1995 of the C.I.L. and as per the guidelines, the petitioner was entitled to 85% of the E l scale (gross emoluments.). He further submitted that the basic pay of E l scale was Rs. 4000/ in the year 1996 and was revised to Rs. 8600/ with effect from 1.1.1997 in September, 2000. According to Mr. Kar, the petitioner was entitled to 85% of Rs. 4000/ + allowances with effect from 1.1.1997, but the petitioner has been given at the rate of Rs. 3000/ per month with effect from 1.1.1996 and at the rate of Rs. 4500/ per month with effect from November, 1999,

(3.) REGARDING payment of the unpaid dues of the late husband of the petitioner, Mr. Kar submitted that the unpaid dues have been detailed in the letter dated 23.12.1999 of the petitioner annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 2 series. He argued that the petitioner's late husband had a medical check up at Cuttack and the certificates with regard to the said medical check up have also been annexed to the writ petition. The petitioner was entitled to salary for the4 months from May, 1994 to September, 1994 when the late husband of the petitioner had gone to Cuttack for such medical check up. Mr. Kar referred to the various documents annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 2 series to show that the late husband of the petitioner was entitled to the dues mentioned in the letter dated 23.12.1999 of the petitioner. Yet, in the letter vide Annexure 1 to the writ petition, the General Manager (MP and IR), C.I.L. has informed the petitioner that her late husband was not entitled to any payment mentioned in the said letter dated 23.12.1999. According to Mr. Kar, appropriate directions should be issued to the opp. parties to pay the said unpaid dues of the late husband of the petitioner. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Sujit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1388 in which some directions were given for reimbursement of medical expenses claimed by the Government servant.