REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE RESERVED ON: 21.08.2026 DELIVERED ON: 09.09.2026 PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE REETOBROTO KUMAR MITRA WPA 10869 OF 2025 SMT. LAKHI MEJHIAN - VERSUS – The UNION OF INDIA &ORS. Appearance: Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, Advocate. Ms. Amrita De, Advocate. Ms. Dipanwita Das, Advocate. ….. for the Applicant/Petitioner Mr. Manik Das, Advocate. ... for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 REPORTABLE Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.: 1. This writ petition has been carried with the grievance that the petitioner has been deprived of the arrears of Monthly Monetary Cash Composition (hereinafter MMCC) from the date of demise of her husband, a former employee of the respondent No. 2, on May 12, 2015. 2. Somra Majhi was an employee of the respondent No. 2 at its schedule Siduli Colliery under Kenda Area and had died in harness on May 12, 2015. The dependents of the said employee as recorded in the service book were his wife, the petitioner herein, his unmarried daughter, and a son, Suraj, who had unfortunately predeceased his father on May 5, 2015. 3. The daughter Sukumoni was a minor at the time of the death of the said employee. 4. The daughter of the petitioner herein, had preferred a writ application before this Hon’ble Court seeking compassionate appointment. This writ petition was disposed of by a co-ordinate bench of this Hon’ble Court on June 20, 2023, holding inter alia that REPORTABLE Sukumoni was not entitled to compassionate appointment, but granted liberty to the petitioner herein to apply to the concerned authority with a prayer for receipt of MMCC. 5. This order of June 20, 2023 was carried in appeal and was disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court by its judgment and order dated August 7, 2024, by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated June 20, 2023. A further direction was given to the authority to give compassionate appointment to the daughter Sukumoni in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. 6. In terms of such order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, Sukumoni has been granted employment and is presently working with the respondent No. 2. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner herein, the widow of the deceased employee, has approached this Court seeking disbursement of the arrears of MMCC from the date of death of the deceased employee on May 12, 2015 till the date of compassionate appointment of the daughter on November 18, 2024 along with interest. A further prayer has also been made seeking compensation in the form of costs on account of REPORTABLE harassment, mental agony, financial hardship, and deliberate delay to provide employment and MMCC by the respondent authority. 7. Mr. R. N. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has made the following submissions in support of the claim for MMCC of the petitioner:- a. The petitioner is the widow of the deceased employee and is thus eligible and indeed entitled to MMCC from the date of death of the said employee. b. The compassionate appointment extends only to the daughter, while the petitioner, the widow of the employee is entitled to receive MMCC as she did not get any compassionate appointment. c. In lieu of compassionate appointment for the period 2015 till 2024, the petitioner is entitled to receive MMCC as stipulated in Clause 9.5.0(iii) of National Coal Wage Agreement-VI (hereinafter NCWA-VI). d. Grant and disbursement of MMCC to the widow is specified in the NCWA-VI. Hence, she is entitled to such REPORTABLE payment which has been withheld by the authority without any reason. e. He has placed reliance on Subhadra v. Ministry of Coal and Anr., reported in (2018) 11 SCC 201 and Namita @ Nami Bauri v. Coal India Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2009) 4 CHN 527. 8. Mr. Manik Das, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, has made the following submissions: a. MMCC is a matter of right only as long as there is no compassionate appointment given to any dependent of the deceased employee. b. The whole purpose of compassionate appointment as specified in Chapter 9 of the NCWA-VI is clear, to enable the family members of the deceased employee to overcome the condition of financial penury to which they are subjected on account of the sudden demise of the employee. REPORTABLE c. Having been granted such compassionate appointment, the question of any further MMCC to other family members of the same family, both of whom are dependents of the same employee, cannot be considered. d. This would be tantamount to double benefit being granted to the family of the deceased employee. The NCWA-VI is clear that there is an option for the widow of the deceased employee, if she is otherwise eligible, either to accept the MMCC or compassionate appointment. In fact, NCWA-VI makes it clear that in the event she is eligible for compassionate appointment, she will not be entitled to MMCC. e. There was a distinguishing feature in NCWA-VI that in the event the family of the deceased employee had a minor son as a dependent, his name would be kept on the live roster and the widow could receive MMCC till the time he attains majority or was given compassionate appointment. This, however, was not extended to the female minor dependents. REPORTABLE f. Thus, this exercise in the present writ petition to obtain a double benefit by way of compassionate appointment for one of the dependents (daughter) and MMCC for another petitioner/wife of the deceased employee should not under any circumstances be entertained. g. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the appeal preferred from the order of the learned Single Judge by the daughter of the petitioner herein in MAT 27 of 2024 (Sukumoni Hembram Alias Sukumoni Mejhan v. The Union of India & Ors.). 9. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties at length and considered the documents relied upon by them. 10. Before adverting to the facts of the case and the law on the subject, it is imperative to spell out the purpose for which this social legislation of compassionate appointment has been espoused. The law of compassionate appointment in this case will have to be read in the light of NCWA-VI and also in the light of the entitlement of the dependants of the deceased family member to MMCC. REPORTABLE 11. Compassionate appointment, as held in several decisions, is a social legislation and has to be considered as such with some amount of empathy and sympathy. This issue has been elaborately discussed and the law has been settled in the case of Putul Rabidas v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors., reported in 2017 (6) WBLR (Cal) 255, a Special Bench of this Court, as well as in The State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Purnima Das and Ors., reported in 2017 (4) CHN 362. 12. Compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of recruitment. The rule of recruitment is based on merit and the most meritorious and eligible candidates are rewarded with appointment to various posts. Compassionate appointment is a complete departure from this rule. 13. The reason for compassionate appointment is to assist a family in financial doldrums due to the death of its sole bread earner. The rationale to depart from the established parameters under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is merely to ensure that the family of such an employee is not left in financial penury, even after the said employee has rendered long years of diligent and bona fide service to the employer. REPORTABLE 14. It is with this intent in mind that the parameters of compassionate appointment have been fixed either by a scheme or as in this case, an agreement between the employer and the employee. 15. In most cases of compassionate appointment, if the dependent of the family of the deceased employee is found to be ineligible, there is an alternative clause to retrieve the family from such financial penury, by way of affording the said family a one-time financial leverage or by grant of monthly allowance to ensure that the family can live with dignity. 16. It is in the light of these aforestated parameters that the claim of the petitioner has to be gauged. 17. The admitted set of facts is that the petitioner is a recorded dependent of the deceased employee along with their daughter, Sukumoni. 18. Sukumoni, for the reasons elaborately discussed in the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Sukumoni Hembram (supra), was granted compassionate appointment only in November 2024, REPORTABLE inasmuch as on the date of demise of the deceased employee in May 2015, Sukumoni, born in 1999, was still a minor. 19. The petitioner has not applied for compassionate appointment for herself. She had applied for compassionate appointment of Sukumoni. In the entire tenure, from the date of death of the said employee till the appointment of Sukumoni (2015 to 2024), the petitioner had never applied for compassionate appointment for herself or for MMCC. 20. Upon Sukumoni being given compassionate appointment in 2024 in pursuance of the direction of this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner had not applied for MMCC at the material point of time. 21. In fact, interestingly, the learned Single Judge while disposing of WPA 13064 of 2023 had directed the petitioner to make an application before the concerned authority for grant of MMCC. It is Sukumoni who had challenged such order, which resulted in the order of the learned Single Judge being set aside. 22. Thus the prayer for MMCC, as raised by the petitioner herein, had already been considered by the learned Single Judge and granted. REPORTABLE However, the grant was in lieu of or on account of Sukumoni not being entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. 23. In appeal, the Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed Sukumoni to be appointed on compassionate ground. Thus, the family of the deceased employee had already been given a leverage, both by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench. The leverage given by the learned Single Judge was MMCC to the petitioner herein while that of the Division Bench was appointment on compassionate ground to Sukumoni. Interestingly, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench granted both prayers at the same time. The Division Bench while setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge did not reserve the right of the petitioner to seek MMCC, as directed by the ld. Single Judge. This issue is thus barred by the principles of res judicata. 24. Decisions of the Single Bench and the Division Bench, can only lead to one conclusion. The conclusion is that a family of the deceased employee cannot be entitled to claim both MMCC and compassionate appointment. REPORTABLE 25. A bare perusal of the concerned clause of the NCWA-VI being the applicable agreement for the case, since the same was in force at the time of death of the deceased employee, is clear and unequivocal in Chapter 9 thereof, which deals with social security. Clause 9.3.2 is set out herein for ready reference:- “9.3.2 Employment to one dependant of the worker who dies while in service Insofar as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0.” 26. The applicable provision in terms of Clause 9.3.2 for the female dependent, whether for employment or payment of monetary compensation, is Clause 9.5.0. 27. Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI reads as under: “9.5.0 Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependant Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependants of workmen who die while in service REPORTABLE and who are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated as under: (i) In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependant would have the option to either accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 4,000/- per month or employment irrespective of her age. (ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to cause other than mine accident and medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if the female dependant is below the age of 45 years, she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 3,000/- per month or employment. In case the female dependant is above 45 years of age, she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment. (iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 12 years and above in REPORTABLE age, he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii) above. This will be effective from 1.1.2000. (iv) Monetary compensation wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependant attains the age of 60 years. (v) The existing rate of monetary compensation will continue. The matter will be further discussed in the Standardisation Committee and finalised. Note : In the case of TISCO, the matter would be settled at bipartite level.” 28. Clause 9.5.0(i) is admittedly not applicable in the instant case as it deals with a case where the death of the employee has occurred due to a mine accident. It is Clause 9.5.0(ii) and Clause 9.5.0(iii) which will have to be considered. REPORTABLE 29. Clause 9.5.0(ii) deals with a case where the female dependent is below the age of 45 years. In such a case, the female dependent has been given an option to either accept monetary compensation or employment. It is clear that a female dependent cannot have both. 30. Thus, any female dependent below the age of 45 years has been given the right to exercise an option. This right has been exercised by the petitioner herein seeking employment for her daughter. Clause 9.5.0(ii) also specifies that in the event the female dependent is above the age of 45 years, she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment. 31. Clause 9.5.0(iii) is also clear. It specifies that the female dependent will be entitled to monetary compensation at applicable rates, if no employment has been offered and the male dependent of the concerned deceased worker is 12 years and above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skills and qualifications once he attains the age of 18 years. It is between this period (12 to 18) that the female dependent will be entitled to be paid monetary compensation. REPORTABLE 32. Thus, if there is no male dependent, the female dependent will have to exercise her option either to accept MMCC or accept employment. She or any other family member cannot have both. 33. In fact, even in Clause 9.5.0(iii), it is clear that the monetary compensation of the female dependent will cover only that period falling within the time limits when the male dependent is within the age group of 12 to 18. Hence, once the male dependent attains the age of 18 years, the female dependent will not be entitled to any monetary compensation. 34. Clearly the idea is to ensure that the family of the deceased employee does not fall into financial hardship and continue in such condition. 35. Once the petitioner has opted to accept employment through her daughter, upon her attaining the age of majority, she cannot at this stage seek a further leverage by claiming MMCC on account of the death of the husband. There is no provision under any of the clauses or even in Clause 9.5.0(iii) of the NCWA-VI to keep a female dependent, like the petitioner’s daughter Sukumoni, on the live roster and to give her employment once she attains majority. REPORTABLE 36. This issue has been sufficiently clarified by the Division Bench in Sukumoni Hembram Alias Sukumoni Mejhan (supra), holding that “Clause 9.5.0(iii) does not govern the right of a female dependent, in a family of the deceased employee, where there is no male dependent, to receive employment or monetary compensation.” 37. The Hon’ble Division Bench has held thus;- “The legal impediment on the employer to engage a person below 18 years of age, under Section 45 of the Mines Act, 1952, does not militate against the right of a female dependent, albeit a minor, at the time of the death of the deceased employee, to exercise her right which stands vested in her in terms of Clause 9.5.0(ii) upon such female dependent attaining the age of an adult. Section 45 of the Mines Act, 1952 at best postpones the enjoyment of the usufructs of the rights vested under Clause 9.5.0(ii) till she attains the age of an adult. The right vested in the female dependent of the deceased employee either for employment or monetary compensation under Clause 9.5.0(ii) cannot be taken away under the shelter of Section 50 of the Mines Act, 1952.” REPORTABLE 38. Thus, in the teeth of this order passed in this very matter, of which the petitioner was also a beneficiary, the petitioner cannot be permitted to put forth a further claim of monetary compensation, having accepted the employment of the daughter on compassionate ground. In fact, the employment of the daughter on compassionate ground had been made by an application filed by the petitioner herself. She has clearly chosen and has opted to accept compassionate appointment in terms of Clause 9.5.0(ii). 39. To presently come and urge that she would be guided by Clause 9.5.0(iii) is nothing short of an abuse of the process of the court. 40. In fact, the decision relied upon by the petitioner of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Subhadra (supra) makes it clear that Clause 9.5.0(ii) gives an option to the female dependent and once the option has been exercised, the provision of Clause 9.5.0(iii) does not operate. In this case, since there is no male dependent, clause 9.5.0(iii) does not apply to the petitioner. 41. Thus, once the option has been exercised and the employment has been granted in terms of such option, exercised by the female dependent, to claim a further relief in the form of MMCC by REPORTABLE another dependent of the same deceased employee would destroy the very fabric of the bilateral agreement between the employer and the employee as envisaged in NCWA-VI, in this particular case. 42. The decision relied upon by the petitioner of Namita (supra) was on a completely different set of facts. In that case, the employment had been wrongly withheld and/or not given to the family member on account whereof compensation under the bipartite agreement was directed to be paid at a particular rate. In this case, there is no such issue which has arisen. 43. In view of the aforesaid discussion and deliberation, the following conclusions are inevitable:- a. Dependants of one family cannot have both MMCC and compassionate appointment. b. The female dependant who is below the age of 45 years is entitled to exercise the option, either to accept MMCC or to apply for compassionate appointment. c. If a female dependant is above the age of 45 years, she can only apply for MMCC. REPORTABLE d. The widow of the deceased employee exercised her option to obtain compassionate appointment for her daughter. e. Not being granted such compassionate appointment, the daughter had preferred a writ petition, which was disposed of, directing the petitioner herein to apply for MMCC, while the daughter’s application for compassionate appointment was rejected. f. In appeal from such order, the Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the appointment to be given to the petitioner’s daughter on compassionate ground. g. Such appointment has been given. h. Only after the appointment was given, did the petitioner apply for MMCC. The family of a deceased employee cannot seek both compassionate appointment and MMCC. REPORTABLE i. The order of the Division Bench, while setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, also set aside the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the petitioner herein to apply for MMCC. j. In view of the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench, the rights of the petitioner stood crystallised into the right of compassionate appointment of the daughter only, as her right to apply for MMCC had been set aside. k. The Division Bench has also held in no uncertain terms that Clause 9.5.0(iii) does not cover the right of a female dependent of the deceased employee where there is no male dependent. Thus, the petitioner’s right to seek MMCC for the interregnum period from 2015 when the petitioner made the application on behalf of the daughter for compassionate appointment till 2024 when the daughter was finally appointed on compassionate ground cannot be considered as a period for which the petitioner as the widow of the deceased employee would be entitled to MMCC. In terms of the NCWA-VI, had it been a male dependent, he would have been on the live roster, REPORTABLE thereby entitling the widow of a deceased employee to obtain MMCC. However, since the same is not applicable to a female dependent, as held by the Hon’ble Division Bench, the petitioner cannot claim such right in spite thereof. Further, the Division Bench has dealt with this matter while disposing of Sukumoni Hembram (supra) without reserving the right of the petitioner to seek MMCC during the interregnum period from 2015 till 2024. l. In view thereof, the rights of the petitioner cannot be revived afresh at this stage by way of a separate writ petition, thereby negating the order of the Division Bench. 44. In view of the aforestated findings, this writ petition to revive the rights of the petitioner for MMCC, which were refused by the Division Bench, cannot be entertained and therefore fails. 45. In view of the aforestated, WPA 10869 of 2025 is dismissed. 46. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. REPORTABLE 47. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be granted to the parties as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance of all formalities. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)