Monetary Compensation Must Be Granted From Date Of Application When Compassionate Appointment Is Denied: Jharkhand HC

Background Facts

The employee was a Piece Rated worker at Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) Dhori (K) Colliery. He died in December 1996 while in service. His widow sought compassionate appointment in 1998. The request was denied in 2002 on the ground that CCL's norms required such applications to be submitted within six months of death.

The widow challenged the rejection before the High Court. It was directed by the Court to CCL to process her statutory dues. Later she filed an Appeal. In 2014 the Court directed CCL to consider her representation for monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. Therefore, CCL granted compensation of Rs. 15,712.62 per month from January 2015. The widow again moved the High Court, contending that the benefit should be given from 1996, date of death. A Single Judge accepted her plea and ordered compensation from the date of death.

Aggrieved by the same, CCL filed the appeal before the Jharkhand High Court against Single Judge order.

It was argued by the CCL that the Single Judge overlooked a long delay on the widow's part. The employee died in December 1996 but she sought monetary compensation in December 2014. The CCL argued that she cannot take advantage of her own delay to claim benefits retrospectively under Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI.

On the other hand, it was argued by the widow that the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA-VI) mandates compassionate appointment to a deceased employee's dependent. If a female dependent is not accommodated, she must be granted monetary compensation. She argued that CCL never extended the monetary benefit to her while rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment. It was submitted that the Single Judge correctly ordered compensation from the date of her husband's death.

Findings of the Court

It was noted by the court that Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI provides a female dependent either compassionate appointment or monetary compensation based on age. The widow was under age of 45 at the time of her husband's death, and she initially sought compassionate appointment. Her request was rejected due to delay in filing application. It was further observed by the Court that CCL failed in its duty as a model employer by not offering the alternate monetary benefit while rejecting her claim for compassionate appointment.

In case of Central Coalfields Limited Vs. Hira Dev, it was held that the widow first applied for compassionate appointment under a mistaken belief, therefore, her request should be treated as monetary benefits. So she would receive the benefits from the date of her application for compassionate appointment.

The case of Putul Devi Vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Others was relied upon wherein it was held by the court that a female dependent under the NCWA cannot be denied monetary compensation when the delay in claiming benefits was not caused by her. Further in the case of Gangia Devi Vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others, it was clarified that monetary compensation under NCWA becomes payable from the date of the employee's death, not from the date when the dependent applies for it.

It was held by the court that the widow will receive monetary compensation from the date she had filed application for compassionate appointment i.e. 15 October 1998. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal filed by the CCL was disposed of by the court.

Case Name : Central Coalfields Limited & Ors. Vs. Sunita Devi

Case No. : L.P.A. No. 42 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : Indrajit Sinha, Advocate, Ankit Vishal, Advocate, Puja Agarwal, Advocate, Sagar Kumar, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate, Ramchander Sahu, Advocate