The main legal point established is that entitlement to monetary compensation under the N.C.W.A agreement and social security principles should be determined from the date of the employee's death, and interest on unpaid compensation may be denied based on the petitioner's actions.

Pramath Patnaik, J.

In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to pay the monetary compensation under para 9.3.0 from the date of death of her husband i.e. from 11.03.1997 and for direction upon the respondents to modify office order dated 12.11.2007 whereby monetary benefit has been sanctioned w.e.f 01.08.2007 instead of March, 1997 i.e. the date of death of her husband and also for direction upon the respondents to make payment of arrears of salary with interest.

2. The facts, in brief, is that the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 11.03.1997 while serving as Quarry Mazdoor in Loyabad Colliery of respondents. Immediately, thereafter the petitioner-wife applied for employment on compassionate ground, which was rejected stating that she has crossed the age of 45 years and as directed by respondents, she filed application for employment of her daughter, but, ultimately, it was also rejected and vide letter dated 31.12.2002 she was informed that the competent authority vide letter dated 21.12.2002 has approved her case for monetary compensation. However, being aggrieved with the order of rejection of employment of her daughter, the petitioner moved before this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 705 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.02.2005 with direction to the respondents to decide the question of payment of consequential monetary to the widow-petitioner. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the writ Court, the petitioner preferred appeal, being L.P.A. No. 169 of 2005, which was dismissed on 28.08.2006 declining to interfere with the order passed by writ Court. Thereafter, the petitioner moved before Hon'ble Apex Court but it met with the same fate and C.C. No. 832 of 2007 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2007.

3. Thereafter, the Chief General Manager, Sijua Area informed the petitioner to submit his claim for monetary benefit with relevant documents and accordingly, the petitioner made representation before the respondents-authorities requesting to allow her monetary benefits from the date of her death of her husband i.e. 11.03.1997 with interest @ 5 % as directed in W.P. (S) No. 705 of 2005. But, vide letter dated 12/19.11.2007, the petitioner was informed that under para 9.3.0, the monetary benefit/compensation has been granted to the petitioner @ 3000/- per month w.e.f. 01.08.2007.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to clause 9.5.0, there is specific provision for employment/monetary compensation to female dependents of workman who die while in service. It has been admitted that employment of the petitioner was denied as she crossed the age of 45 years but she is entitled to get monetary compensation to the tune of Rs. 3000/- per month from the date of death of her husband. It has further been submitted that moreover, it is the authorities concerned who have approved/sanctioned the monetary benefit way back in 2002 vide order dated 30.12.2002, so there is no valid reason to give it effective from 01.08.2007 rather the petitioner is entitled to get the same w.e.f. March, 1997.

5. In support of her argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision rendered in the case of Dukhni Devi v. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors as reported in 2014 (2) JCR 117 : 2013 (4) JLJR 571 wherein it has been held that petitioner-widow is entitled to get the monetary compensation from the date of death of her husband i.e. 1997 even though she applied the same in the 2010.

6. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is the petitioner, who did not accept the offer made by the respondents-authorities relating to monetary benefits, when it was found that she is not found fit for employment and she remained herself engaged in fighting by filing writ petition in which the Hon'ble Court has been