A deceased employee’s dependants cannot simultaneously claim MMCC and compassionate appointment.

Somra Majhi, an employee of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. at Siduli Colliery, died in harness on 12 May 2015. His recorded dependants included his widow, Lakhi Mejhian, and his unmarried daughter, Sukumoni; his son Suraj had predeceased him on 5 May 2015.

Sukumoni was a minor when her father died and subsequently sought compassionate appointment. A Single Judge held that she was not entitled to such appointment but granted liberty to the widow to apply for Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation (“MMCC”).

On appeal, the Division Bench set aside that decision and directed the authorities to grant Sukumoni compassionate appointment, which was ultimately provided on 18 November 2024.

The widow then sought MMCC arrears from 12 May 2015 until Sukumoni’s appointment, together with interest and compensation for alleged harassment and delay.

The respondents contended that the family could not claim both compassionate appointment and MMCC under Clause 9.5.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VI (“NCWA-VI”).

Whether the widow was entitled to MMCC for the period between the deceased employee’s death and the subsequent compassionate appointment of his daughter.

Whether, under Clauses 9.3.2 and 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI, the dependants of the deceased employee could claim both compassionate appointment for the daughter and MMCC for the widow.

Whether the widow’s claim for MMCC was barred after the Division Bench had set aside the Single Judge’s direction permitting her to apply for MMCC.

The Court applied Clauses 9.3.2 and 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI, which regulate employment or monetary compensation for female dependants of employees who die in service.

Under Clause 9.5.0(ii), a female dependant below 45 years must choose between MMCC and compassionate employment, whereas a female dependant above 45 years is entitled only to MMCC.

Clause 9.5.0(iii) provides MMCC during the period when a male dependant aged between 12 and 18 years is kept on a live roster, but does not extend that arrangement to a female minor dependant.

The Court relied on the principles governing compassionate appointment as a measure intended to alleviate the financial hardship caused by the death of the sole breadwinner, while remaining an exception to ordinary merit-based recruitment.

It also relied on Putul Rabidas v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd., 2017 (6) WBLR (Cal) 255, The State of West Bengal v. Purnima Das, 2017 (4) CHN 362, Subhadra v. Ministry of Coal, (2018) 11 SCC 201, and the Division Bench decision in Sukumoni Hembram Alias Sukumoni Mejhan v. The Union of India & Ors., MAT 27 of 2024.

The Court further held that the Division Bench’s decision, which set aside the direction to seek MMCC and granted compassionate appointment instead, crystallised the family’s entitlement in favour of compassionate appointment and barred revival of the MMCC claim.

The Court held that the widow had exercised the family’s available option by seeking compassionate appointment for Sukumoni, rather than pursuing MMCC.

Since Sukumoni was a female dependant and there was no surviving male dependant, Clause 9.5.0(iii)—which provides MMCC while a minor male dependant remains on the live roster—was inapplicable.

The Division Bench had expressly substituted the Single Judge’s MMCC-related direction with a direction granting Sukumoni compassionate appointment; it had not reserved any right to claim MMCC for the intervening period.

Consequently, allowing the widow to claim MMCC after the daughter had obtained compassionate employment would confer two benefits on the same family arising from the death of one employee, contrary to NCWA-VI.

The Court distinguished Namita @ Nami Bauri v. Coal India Ltd., 2009 (4) CHN 527, because that case concerned compensation for employment wrongly withheld, which was not the factual situation here.

It held that dependants of the deceased employee’s family could not receive both compassionate appointment and MMCC; the widow’s claim for MMCC for the period from 12 May 2015 to 18 November 2024 was unavailable, particularly because the Division Bench had granted compassionate appointment to the daughter without preserving any MMCC claim.

WPA 10869 of 2025 was dismissed, with no order as to costs.