GULWANTI DEVI Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that one late Sarju Thakur, husband of the petitioner, a permanent employee of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited died in harness on 15.4.1996, leaving the petitioner and four minor children. The name of this petitioner and her two sons does find mentioned in the service excerpt of her husband prepared in the year 1987. After the death of her husband, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in terms of clause 9.5.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement. Upon completion of all the formalities, Personnel Manager, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited issued a letter dated 26.3.1998 relating to appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. However, before the petitioner could be appointed, one Bhunehwari Devi claiming herself to be legally wedded wife of late Sarju Thakur put objection on the appointment of the petitioner. Subsequently, the said Bhunehwari Devi and her children filed Title Suit No.53 of 1998 before the learned Munsif I, Dhanbad for declaration that they are the legally heirs of late Sarju Thakur. This petitioner was arrayed as one of the defendants in that suit. In course of the proceeding, when said Bhunehwari Devi (plaintiff no.1) died, her name was expunged from the cause title of the case. However, that suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.

(2.) Being aggrieved with that decree, this petitioner preferred Title Appeal No.103 of 2004 wherein plaintiffs of the Title Suit as well as Project Officer were made respondents. While the appeal was pending for adjudication, the appellant and the respondents (heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Bhuneshwari Devi) with the intervention of the common friends got the matter settled amicably and the terms of compromise were reduced in writing. Accordingly, Title Appeal was decreed in terms of the compromise which are as follows:

(3.) Being aggrieved with that order dated 11.6.2008 as contained in Annexure 3, this writ application has been filed for its quashing and also for a direction to the respondent to allow the petitioner to join her duties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is not the first wife of the deceased employee but name of this petitioner and her children were there in the service excerpt of the deceased employee and that in terms of the compromise arrived at in between the parties, the petitioner is to be given employment by the Bharat Coking Coal Limited, who was also party to the suit as well as the appeal and in whose presence the Title Appeal was decreed in terms of compromise and hence, the Bharat Coking Coal Limited can be said to have acknowledged the terms of the compromise as signature has been put by the counsel appearing for the Bharat Coking Coal Limited on the compromise petition filed before the court and under this situation, the respondent-Bharat Coking Coal Limited cannot deny appointment to the petitioner on the plea that the petitioner is the second wife of the deceased employee when the appeal had been decreed in terms of compromise whereby it had been agreed by the parties that this petitioner is to be given employment by the Bharat Coking Coal Limited.