Compassionate appointment rights under NCWA must be evaluated without delay; the employer's inaction violates the employee's fundamental rights.

JUDGMENT :

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.

1. These intra Court appeals have been filed by both the parties against a judgement and order dated 26.11.2024, allowing the prayer of the writ petitioner Mangala Bouri for her claim of Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation (MMCC) and directing the Appellant Authority to pay the same from the date of death of her mother that is 27th November 2000 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

2. The appellant Authority challenged the order on the ground of wrong interpretation by the learned single Judge in respect of the facts and circumstances of the case and saddled them with interest at the rate of 6% per annum ignoring the negligence on the part of the writ petitioner/claimant to substantiate her claim with proper and sufficient documents. That apart the ground of challenge of the said judgement by the claimant is the quantum of interest granted by the single Bench and prayed for 18% interest instead of 6% per annum with costs of Rs .10 Lakhs only for the harassment suffered by her. Since both the appeal germinated from the same judgement and order and the matter for adjudication in both the cases are same, the appeals were heard analogously.

Brief fact of the case

3. The husband of Tulsi Bouri was an employee of Eastern Coalfield limited in short (ECL), who is a leading coal producer in India , Government of India undertaking and one of the subsidiaries of the Coal India Limited. After demise of the said employee, his wife Tulsi Bouri was given a compassionate appointment. On September 8, 2008, Tulsi Bouri applied for VRS and GHS scheme, which was under active consideration and on November 27, 2000, received intimation from the respondent regarding death of her mother Tulsi Bouri, expired on November 26, 2000.

4. The Claimant /writ petitioner made an application before the Appellant No.1 seeking employment on compassionate ground on December 14, 2000 and on March 14, 2001, submitted her attestation, biodata, etc. Dispute raised primarily regarding her claim of sole dependant daughter of the deceased employee when in the service record names of other legal heirs were found. Several communications were made between the parties relating to her application and she also appeared before a committee constituted by ECL to consider her case on several occasion with the necessary documents and on April 22, 2003 she specifically refused to take MMCC of Rs. 3000 in lieu of employment.

5. Long thereafter in the year 2013 she was suddenly intimated about certain discrepancies and was again directed to appear and then on 19.8.24 she made a representation before the Authority and claimed for MMCC in place of employment. Since the authority did not take any positive step she filed a writ petition being WP No. 915 (w) of 2024, seeking payment of arrears of MMCC back from the date of death of her mother, which was contested by the Authority .The learned Single Judge by virtue of an order dated November 26, 2024, allowed the prayer of the writ petitioner Mongolia Bouri directing the Authority to pay the arrears of MMCC along with 6% interest per annum considering the fact the claimant has surpassed the age of 45.Being aggrieved thereby these intra court appeals have been preferred by both the parties.

Submissions

6. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the ECL, would submit that the appointment of Tulsi Bouri was a compassionate appointment in place of her deceased husband after considering all the documents as well as after compliance with all formalities. Tulsi Bouri during her life time on September 8, 2000, applied for VRS and GHS schem