IInn tthhee H Hiigghh CCoouurrtt aatt CCaallccuuttttaa 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 Monetary Cash Compensation [MMCC] from 1st 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