PARBATI BHUINI Vs. BCCL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is widow of late Budhu Bhuiya, who died in harness on 17.8.1996 while working as General Mazdoor in Loyabad Colliery under the respondent-BCCL. Her daughter Rekha came before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6537 of 2011 with a claim for compassionate appointment. Though learned Single Judge on the said occasion vide judgment dated 2.1.2012, Annexure-1, refused to entertain the application so far as claim for compassionate appointment is concerned, but with regard to the prayer for payment of monetary compensation to the mother of the said petitioner, made an observation that if the mother of the petitioner filed an application for payment of monetary compensation, the respondent shall dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order.

(2.) By reasoned order enclosed as Annexure-A, monetary compensation has been denied by the respondent-General Manager, Sijua Area on the ground that the present petitioner/widow of late Budhu Bhuiya was already in employment under BCCL at the time of death of her husband and as per the company's records, she has retired from the services of the company on opting VRS on 20.4.2001. She has already attained 60 years on 30.6.2009 whereafter such a claim for monetary compensation has been made. The petitioner in the present writ application has made a prayer for providing the benefit of monetary compensation in terms of clause 9.3.2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement making a claim after the death of her husband and in view of the observation made in the judgment passed in W.P.(S) No. 6537 of 2011, Annexure-1 in her daughter's case. However, if the petitioner herself was in employment at the time of death of her husband and thereafter opted for VRS in the year 2001 and may be enjoying the terminal benefit, the provisions of NCWA so far as claim for monetary compensation will not come to aid of such a person, who cannot be said to be in the category of destitute dependent after the death of employee i.e. husband in the present case.

(3.) Therefore, I do not find merit in the writ petition and the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner after consideration of all relevant materials by the reasoned order enclosed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.