Safiya Malik

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking compassionate employment at Coal India Limited, upholding the Single Bench’s decision that the claim was barred by delay and laches. The Division Bnech held that the appellants, who sought employment or monetary compensation under the die-in-harness scheme, had approached the court after an inordinate delay without a reasonable explanation.

The appeal arose from an order dated December 1, 2023, passed by the Single Bench in WPA 6043 of 2022, dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellants seeking employment or monetary compensation under Coal India Limited’s compassionate employment scheme. The petitioners had approached the court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to appoint either of them under the die-in-harness scheme or to provide monetary compensation.

The case pertained to the death of one Habu Muchi, an employee of Coal India Limited, who passed away in harness on January 24, 1996. The first appellant, his daughter from his second wife, sought employment or compensation under the compassionate employment scheme. The second appellant, the deceased employee’s son-in-law, had earlier approached the court in 2012 with a similar request, which was rejected by the authorities through a reasoned order on November 12, 2012. No legal challenge was made against this rejection.

Subsequently, on January 6, 2021, the first appellant submitted a fresh representation, which was not considered by the authorities. On March 17, 2022, both appellants filed WPA 6043 of 2022 before the Single Bench. The petition was dismissed on December 1, 2023, primarily on the ground of delay, prompting the present appeal.

The Division Bench of the High Court examined the claim and recorded that:

1. The first appellant, being married at the time of her father’s death, did not fall within the definition of a dependent under Clause 9.3.3 of the bipartite agreement governing compassionate appointments. The relevant clause states: “The dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependant of the deceased.”

2. The authorities had conducted an inquiry and found that neither of the appellants were dependents of the deceased employee. The committee report dated June 23, 2023, confirmed that at the time of the employee’s death, the appellants were not residing with him and were not financially dependent on him.

3. The court held that the writ petition was barred by inordinate delay and laches. The claim was raised 25 years after the employee’s death, and even after the rejection of the son-in-law’s request in 2012, no legal action was taken for nearly a decade.

4. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine 551, which held: “For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been invoked. Submitting memorials would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a natural death. The High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting such indolent litigants to take advantage of their own wrong.”

5. The court noted that the petitioners had failed to provide any cogent explanation for the delay in approaching the court. The claim was therefore barred by laches, and the appellants could not seek a discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The High Court issued the following directions:

1. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of delay, laches, and lack of merit.

2. The findings of the Single Bench were upheld, confirming that the appellants were not dependents under the bipartite agreement.

3. The court declined to interfere with the factual findings of the screening committee, which had determined that the appellants were not financially dependent on the deceased employee.

4. Any pending interim reliefs or applications stood dismissed.

Case Title: Smt. Tumpa Muchi & Anr. v. Coal India Limited & Ors.
Case Number: MAT 609 of 2024
Bench: Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen

[Read/Download order]