2025:JHHC:12534 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No.23 of 2024 ---- Most. Sahodari Devi, aged about 57 years, w/o Suresh Rabidas, Permanenet Resident of Village-Bendgi, P.O. RasoiyaDhamna, P.S.Barhi, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. …. …. Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S- Seraidhela, District-Dhanbad. 3. The Director Personnel, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Seraidhela, District-Dhanbad. 4. The Director (Finance), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S- Seraidhela, District-Dhanbad. 5. The General Manager (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S- Seraidhela, District-Dhanbad. 6. The Area Manager (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Bastakola Area Area-9, Kuya Colliery, P.S Jharia, Dhanbad. 7. The Project Officer, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Bastakola Area Area-9, Kuya Colliery, P.S Jharia, Dhanbad. 8. The Welfare Officer, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Bastakola Area Area- 9, Kuya Colliery, P.S Jharia, Dhanbad. …. …. Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. U.K. Das, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P-II ---- 19/Dated: 25th April, 2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present contempt case has been filed for initiating proceeding against the opposite parties as the order dated 05.09.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.1185 of 2023 has not been complied with, till date. 3. During pending of the present case, a dispute has been raised regarding the date of birth of the widow of the deceased. Even that dispute has been resolved as is evident from the statement made in paragraph No.5 of the supplementary affidavit dated 02.04.2025, which is quoted herein below:- “It is humbly stated and submitted that the controversy with regard to the age assessment of the petitioner as she is entitled to receive monetary compensation till attainment of 60 years or till death. In pursuance of order 2025:JHHC:12534 Page No.2 Cont. Case (Civil) No.23 of 2024 dated 05.03.2025 in which the Hon’ble High Court has observed that the circular dated 06.11.2021 is of no consequence and therefore, it has been decided that the age of the petitioner would be assessed from the service sheet of the deceased employee i.e., the husband of the petitioner’’. 4. In that view of the matter, there is no requirement to proceed any further in the matter. Accordingly, the present contempt case is hereby, disposed of and proceeding is closed. 5. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out her further remedy in accordance with law, if any other dues remain. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Raja/- Uploaded