M/S. EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED vs KUMARI SUKURMONI MEJHEN @ SUKUMONI MAJHEN @ SUKUMONI MEJHEN @ SUKUMANI MEJHEN AND ORS.

Court
Calcutta High Court

In the High Court at Calcutta
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Original Side


PRESENT :
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA PRATIM ROY


APOT/106/2026
IN WPO/2/2025

M/S. EASTERN COALFILDS LIMITED
VS
KUMARI SUKURMONI MEJHEN@
SUKUMONI MAJHEN@ SUKUMONI
MEJHEN@SUKUMANI MEJHEN ANDORS.

For the appellant : Mr.Manik Das,Adv.



For the respondent/
Writ petitioner : Mr. Partha Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Amal Kumar Datta, Adv.
Mr. Debashis Das, Adv.
Mr. BratinSuin, Adv.



Heard on : August 27, 2026

Judgment on : August 27, 2026
[In Court]


MADHURESH PRASAD, J :

1. The present intra court appeal was preferred by the M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited, respondent before the writ court.
The writ court considered the writ petitioner’s claim for grant
of Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation [MMCC] under the
National Coal Wage Agreement [NCWA] on account of demise

2

of the writ petitioner’s father during his employment in the
appellant’s organization. The writ court has allowed the relief
by Judgment dated 25.02.2026 in WPO No.2 of 2025 passed
by the learned Single Judge Bench.
2. Heard learned advocate for the appellant. The factual
background leading to filing of the present appeal is the
demise of the present writ petitioner’s father in harness while
working as a workman under the present appellant on
22.05.1998. Thereafter, a letter of appointment dated
07.11.2001 was issued in favour of the present writ
petitioner’s elder brother provisionally appointing him as an
underground loader. The elder brother of the petitioner (son of
deceased employee) however did not avail the employment.
3. The younger sister (present petitioner), thereafter, moved an
application for grant of compassionate appointment in place
of the brother. Since 2010 there are several correspondences
on record processing/considering the present petitioner’s
claim for compassionate appointment. Affidavits of
relinquishment and “No Objection” were called for from the
legal heirs. Several details were requisitioned from
variousauthorities. Medical examination was also done, and
the petitioner was also found fit for grant of an appointment
on compassionate ground. The exercise, however, did not
culminate in appointment of the writ petitioner. After waiting
for such consideration for about fifteen years, she moved the
writ petition.

3

4. Learned single Judge taking note of such facts and
circumstances; and the fact that the benefit was being sought
andprocessed under the NCWA [National Coal Wage
Agreement], which is a beneficial scheme, directed the
authorities to pay to the writ petitioner benefit of Monthly
st
Monetary Cash Compensation [MMCC] from 1 November,
2010, that is, the date on which the present petitioner applied
for the appointment in question. The order of the Learned
Single Judge is put to challenge in the present intra-court
appeal.
5. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that sincethe
benefits are claimed under NCWA, the terms and
conditions/rights and obligations of both the parties are
guided by the same. He has laid emphasis on clause 9.3.1 of
the NCWA which readsas follows :
“9.3.1 – Employment would be provided to one dependant
of workers who are disabled permanently and also those
who die while in service. The provision will be
implemented as follows.”

6. Referring to the provisions, it is submitted that the same
contemplates the grant of compassionate appointment to one
dependant only. The obligation of the appellant therefore
seized with issuance of an offer of compassionate appointment
to the petitioner’s elder brother on 07.11.2001. He, therefore,
submits that there is no justification for the writ court to

4

direct for grant of benefit of MMCC to another dependant of
the deceased employee.
7. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner-respondent
submits that the alternative compassionate appointment
sought for the writ petitioner was considered and processed at
various levels. The requisite information was taken into
consideration from the various authorities as regards the
petitioner’s eligibility. As a result, the higher authorities in the
appellant organization, including the Manager (Pers/Admn),
Manager (Finance), the Senior Manager (Min)/A.M.(PC&D),
the Chief Manager (Personnel) and the General Manager,
found the claim admissible.
8. Despite such findings by the highest officials in the
organization, the family of the deceased was left in penury;as
neither the first appointment was availed for benefit of the
family left in penury, nor the second claim was finally made
available to the family of the deceased, despite being found in
order and recommended by all these authorities.
9. Under such circumstances it is submitted by learned advocate
for the ECL that Clause 9.3.1 of the NCWA precludes grant of
compassionate appointment to the petitioner since earlier
compassionate appointment was offered to her brother.
10. That offer, however, was after considering the financial
condition of the family that it did not receive a single penny
since 22.5.1998, being the date of demise of the
employee/workman. Once the family of the deceased was

5

found entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment on
grounds of penury and having regard to the provisions
contained in the NCWA for grant of MMCC from the date of
demise of the employee/workman, there can be no
justification for denying grant of MMCC to the writ petitioner,
accordingly.
11. We consideredthat the provision contained in clause 9.3.1 is
clear in its intent. It contemplates grant of only one
compassionate appointment, to one defendant. The learned
single judge obviously, therefore, did not direct for grant of
compassionate appointment to the present writ petitioner.
However, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the rights and
obligations arising from the NCWA, in the nature of a
settlement under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
contemplates that the family of the deceased employee should
be given a benefit either of MMCC or compassionate
appointment. Even if the second applicant was not entitled to
the compassionate appointment, clause 9.3.1 cannot be relied
upon to keep the family/dependants of the deceased employee
deprived of the benefit of MMCC, also under the NCWA.
12. We find that the family has remained deprived of such benefit
because the authoritiesdespite processing the petitioner’s
claim for compassionate appointment did not offer the benefit,
for nearly fifteen years from the date of application, i.e.,
29.9.2010. Such being the circumstances, we will not permit
the authorities to take advantage of their own wrong so as to

6

keep the dependants of the deceased, deprived of the benefit
of the MMCC.
13. The learned advocate for the appellant also relied on one
judgment of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court
in support of his submission founded on clause 9.3.1. The
judgment takes into consideration a subsequent claim for
grant of compassionate appointment. In the present case, we
find that the direction of the single Judge is not for grant of
compassionate appointment for a second applicant after the
first applicant was already offered an appointment. The
learned single Judge did not pass any such direction.
Therefore, we find the reliance placed on an unreported
judgment dated 03.05.2017 in LPA No. 562 of 2014, by the
Division Bench of High Court at Jharkhand in the case of
Central Coal Fields Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar And Anr. to
be misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
14. In so far as processing and consideration of the writ
petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment after his
elder brother declined such benefit, we are of the view that
such action of the elder brother cannot be made the basis to
deny the family of deceased the due benefit of MMCC under
the NCWA. However, considering a submission of the learned
advocate for ECL that consideration and processing of
petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was illegal
and contrary to NCWA, we are of the view that if the

7

authorities have acted contrary to the scheme by processing
and finding the claim of the writ petitioner admissible for
compassionate appointment, it is open to the authorities to
proceed against the erring officials, noted above, in
accordance with law.
15. The Learned Single Judge bench did not direct to grant of
compassionate appointment to the writ petitioner, but
directed for payment of MMCC from the date of application
made by the present petitioner, i.e., November, 2010. In view
of our above consideration we find no reason to interfere with
such direction. The intra-court appeal is, thus, dismissed.

(MADHURESH PRASAD, J.)
I agree.
(PARTHA PRATIM ROY, J.)

S. Mandi