CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED Vs. HIRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent even after service of notice upon the respondent. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment dated 17th October, 2011 by which the writ petition of the writ petitioner, being W.P. (S) No. 4438 of 2010 has been disposed of with relief to the petitioner that petitioner shall be paid monetary benefit from the date of death of husband of the petitioner.

(2.) According to learned counsel for the appellant, the petitioner's husband died in the year 1998 and when she applied for compassionate appointment she was above the age of 45 years, therefore, she could not be given compassionate appointment and she was advised to move an application for monetary benefit under the guidelines dated 8th April, 1995, wherein it has been provided that payment on monthly basis will be paid to the female de-pendent of the employee from the first day of following month from which the application is submitted by widow/ female dependent of the deceased employee. In spice of such advise, the petitioner did not submit any application for monetary benefit and she preferred the writ petition, which has been disposed of by judgment dated 17th October, 2011 giving relief of monetary benefit from the date of death of husband of the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the guidelines the monetary benefits can be given to the petitioner only from the date of submission of application for monetary benefit. Therefore, the appellant has grievance that petitioner cannot be given monetary benefit from the date of death of husband of the petitioner.

(3.) We considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the reasons given in the judgment dated 17th October, 2011 as well as the scheme. It appears from the totality of the scheme that a dependent and particularly a female dependent of the deceased employee is entitled to two benefits, which are in alternate; one of compassionate appointment and another of monetary benefit. It appears that petitioner widow of the employee was under impression that she can get the compassionate appointment which appears to be more beneficial to the petitioner, she applied for compassionate appointment and she pursued her remedy for compassionate appointment, even by filing the writ petition in the year 2010. Therefore, the petitioner, if under a wrong impression has committed one wrong, it cannot be said that she was not willing to take the alternate remedy, which is lesser beneficial to the petitioner. Therefore, in the facts of the case, we are of the view that if the learned single Judge has allowed the relief to the petitioner for monetary benefit under the scheme, it may be due to the reason of only conversion of the application of seeking compassionate appointment to an application for monetary benefit. In view of above reasons, we are of the considered opinion that there is no reason for interference in the impugned judgment. How-ever, the petitioner shall be given all monetary benefits from the date of application submitted for compassionate appointment.