IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL &

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE MAT 332 of 2024 IA No. CAN 2 of 2024 DIPALI MITRA & ORS.

Vs.

COAL INDIA LIMITED & ORS.

Appearance:

For the Appellants : Mr. Partha Ghosh, Adv.

Mr. Amal Kumar Datta, Adv.

Ms. Simran Sureka, Adv.

Mr. Debashis Das, Adv.

Mr. Bratin Suin, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Adv.

Ms. Sanchita Barman Roy, Adv.

Heard On : 23.07.2025 Judgment On : 28.07.2025 Sujoy Paul, J.:

1. This intra Court appeal takes exception to the order dated 17th September, 2023 passed in WPA 14349 of 2018.

2. The admitted facts between the parties are that Shri Shib Das Mitra an employee of ECL died in harness on 26th May, 2010 leaving behind petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 who are deceased’s wife, son-in-law, married daughter and son respectively. The deceased employee’s son namely, Suman Mitra resides out of country and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were married on 11.05.2004.

3. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 claimed compassionate appointment as per Chapter IX of National Coal Wage Agreement from the employer. Respondent dismissed their application by order dated 29th January, 2015. Assailing this order, WP 306 of 2015 was filed by the petitioners. The said petition was decided by this Court on 10th March, 2017. This Court while setting aside the impugned order dated 29th January, 2015 directed the Chairman, Coal India Ltd. to take a decision on the issue within 3 months from the date of communication of the order. A review application no. RVWO 20 of 2017 was filed which came to be disposed of by order dated 1st December, 2017. The only modification was that the claim of petitioners needs to be considered by the Chairman of Eastern Coal Field Ltd. (ECL).

4. In turn, a ‘reasoned order’ dated 21.02.2018 was passed whereby the claim of all the petitioners was rejected by the ECL. The petitioners unsuccessfully challenged it by preferring an appeal dated 03.03.2018 although admittedly there exists no express provision of filing appeal.

5. The instant WP 1434 of 2018 was filed assailing the reasoned order dated 21.02.2018. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties issued orders and directions and opined that in the rejection order dated 21.02.2018 there exists no infirmity which warrants interference by the Court. However, the Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-VI was declared as ultra vires. Interestingly, while declaring the provision as ultra vires, the Court in specific directed that the respondents shall not discriminate married women and treat them under the first category of dependents in future.

Contention of appellant:

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that offending Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-VI which was coming in his way was rightly declared as ultra vires by learned Single Judge. However, learned Single Judge erred in giving it a prospective effect. In all fairness, the appellants who have fought a long drawn battle are entitled to get the fruits of the litigation.

7. To elaborate, learned counsel for the appellant urged that in the first round of litigation, this Court made it clear that married daughter cannot be discriminated and in this view of the matter, the claim of married daughter was required to be considered in proper perspective. It was to be ascertained whether the daughter and/or the son-in-law are wholly dependent on the deceased for their livelihood and had no significant income of their own. It hardly matters whether daughter is married or unmarried because married daughter can also be part of deceased’s family and a dependent on his income.

8. It was further argued that the appellants were dependent of the deceased employee and were residing with the deceased employee.

9. Criticizing the rejection order dated 21.02.2018, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no independent application of mind by the learned authority on the claim of the married daughter. The discussion in the