Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010069322018 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2159/2018 PHOOLMAYA LIMBOO W/O. LT. DURGA BAHADUR, VILL. BORGOLAI M.K. LINE, P.O. BORGOLAI, P.S. MARGHERITA, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM VERSUS COAL INDIA LTD. AND 2 ORS. REP. BY CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, NEC BORGOLAI COLLIERY, CIL, MARGHERITA, TINSUKIA, ASSAM 2:THE CHIEF MANAGER (P/IR)/AGENT BORGOLAI COLLIERY P.O. BORGOLAI P.S. MARGHERITA ASSAM 3:THE AGENT BORGOLAI COLLIERY P.O. BORGOLAI P.S. MARGHERITA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. R SARMAH, MS. P SAHA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, COAL INDIA, MR. M Z AHMED (R1-R3),MR. A M DUTTA (R1-R3) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 04.06.2026 Heard Ms. P. Saha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.M. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. By this application filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for payment of monetary compensation to the petitioner in view of the memorandum of agreement prepared by the respondent authorities. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was working as Explosive Carrier, Cat-II at Borgolai Cooliery, since 22.03.1983. The petitioners furthers case is that her husband died in harness on 29.07.2007 when he had more than 8 years of service left. After the death of her husband, the petitioner had applied for monetary compensation before the authorities concerned as the same is allowed under the memorandum of agreement by Clause 9.5.0 of Chapter 9. It is provided in the said provision that in case of death caused other than mine accident and medical unfitness and if the female dependant is below the age of 45 years, she will have the option to apply for compassionate appointment and if the female dependant is above 45 years of age, she will be entitled only to monetary compensation. In view of the same, the petitioner applied for the monetary compensation first on 20.05.2010. In pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, the Chief Manager, Borgolai Cooliery intimated the petitioner that along with her application, she is required to submit another application showing the delay Page No.# 3/4 caused in applying for the said compensation, to which the petitioner had submitted an application. The petitioner further submits that as far as gratuity and other terminal benefits which accrued to her deceased husband is concerned that was paid to her but compensation under the said MOA was not given. She however, states that she got a letter dated 21.02.2013 by which agent of Borgolai Cooliery had informed her that monetary compensation as prayed for was rejected by the competent authority on belated ground. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the memorandum of agreement, it was not stated that the application for monetary compensation should be submitted immediately on death of the relative and that it was only in the year 2012, more specifically on 08.08.2012, a letter was written by the Chief Manager that claims of monetary compensation after six months from the death of the employee will not be entertained and that the approval was sought for from the head office at Kolkata. She submits that the said letter dated 08.08.2012 was much after her application before the authorities for monetary compensation and that the said decision cannot be retrospectively applied. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that providing monetary compensation is akin to giving compassionate appointment and the same analogy is applicable in both the cases. The compassionate appointment is also given immediately after the death of the employee in order to save the family from financial vagaries. Similarly, monetary compensation is also provided to save the family there from. Like in compassionate appointment, delay in applying for the same is taken as an important factor for refusal, similar is in the case of compensation amount. If there is delay in applying for the same, the same requires rejection and he submits that this is not a new development but has been there since long. Page No.# 4/4 It is seen that the petitioner has applied before the authorities for monetary compensation after almost 3 years more specifically 2 years 10 months from the death of her husband, but at the same time, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee and when her husband died, she was more than 45 years of age and that she could not apply for compassionate employment but applied for monetary compensation. The delay in filing for the same can be caused on genuine grounds. It can be a case that although she applied late and till date 19 years have elapsed from the death of her husband, the family may still be having financial constraints. Thus, this Court finds it fit to direct the authorities in the North Eastern Coal Fields, Coal India Limited to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the said facts and instead of rejecting the case only on delay can examine the financial conditions of the petitioner by any means and if it is found that the petitioner has no proper means to sustain, the authorities in the Coal India Limited will consider paying the monetary compensation to the petitioner. The same be allowed with arrear benefits as well, if found eligible. The said exercise is to be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner to file a representation along with a copy of this order at the earliest. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant