MONGLI SOREN Vs. EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THERE was initially a confusion with regard to the genuineness of the petitioner 'sclaim on the basis of the statements made in the Counter Affidavit, but when a Rejoinder was filed by the petitioner to the said Counter Affidavit, the respondents have filed a Reply to the Rejoinder wherein they have stated at paragraphs 6 to 8 that the petitioner 'shusband, namely, Baijo Manjhl was a Badii T. Stacker/Loader and was deployed in place of a permanent employee as and when vacancy arose. Relying on the statements made by the petitioner that her husband unauthorisedly absented from duty from 29.12.1987. These respondents have further stated that the name of her husband was recorded as Badli Worker of Gopinath Colliery and that his name recorded at Sl. 2223 showed his appointment on 28.12.1981 and in the remarks column, his date of death was mentioned as 05.12.1989, in that view of the matter, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has stated that he was actually on duty only till 29.12.1987 and therefore he has worked only for a period" of six years from the date of his appointment till 29.12.1987. As per paragraph 8 of the said Reply to the Rejoinder, the respondents have paid the following amounts to the petitioner: -

(3.) TAKING into consideration the aforementioned facts, this Court at this stage is not inclined to pass any further orders for payment of the dues, which the petitioner has referred to in paragraph 10 of the writ petition unless she is able to satisfy that her husband was entitled to provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment and other post retrial dues beyond what has been paid. To that extent, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent No. 6, who shall give opportunity to either the petitioner or her authorized representative/counsel so as to satisfy himself as to whether the petitioner can. in fact, claim the benefits mentioned above. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled, then the respondent -authorities shall do the needful strictly in accordance with law subject to the petitioner being able to establish her claims also in accordance with law. So far as the claim in relation to compassionate appointment based on Clause 9.4.3 of the National Coal Wage Agreement is concerned, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief because the death occurred in 1989 and 15 (fifteen) years have gone by. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief in relation to the compassionate appointment. The writ petition is closed with the aforesaid observations. There shall however, be no order as to costs.