Compassionate Appointment Not Bounty | Eastern Coalfields Limited Ordered To Pay MMCC With 7.5% Interest | Calcutta HC Slams Delay Despite Widow Daughter’s Persistent Claims
Safiya Malik
The High Court at Calcutta Division Bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, on July 1, 2025, issued a judgment directing the payment of Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation (MMCC) along with 7.5% interest to a claimant who was denied compassionate appointment or compensation for over two decades. The court modified an earlier single bench order to hold that the claimant was entitled to compensation from September 2001—when a screening committee had recorded a positive opinion about her claim—rather than from the date of death of the employee, which was November 2000.
The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Eastern Coalfields Limited and partly allowed the cross-appeal filed by the claimant. It held that there was no justification for the delay in granting either employment or compensation, particularly after the employer's screening committee had verified the claimant's genuineness. The Division Bench recorded that the conduct of the employer showed "ample apathy over the issue" and a "failure to implement the scheme," resulting in the claimant being unjustifiably denied the relief for more than two decades. The bench directed the arrears to be paid by July 15, 2025.
The intra-court appeals arose out of a judgment dated November 26, 2024, which had allowed the writ petition of a claimant seeking MMCC from the date of her mother’s death in 2000. The said order was challenged by Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL), a government undertaking under Coal India Limited, primarily contesting the award of interest and the retrospective application of MMCC. The claimant also filed a cross-appeal seeking enhancement of interest from 6% to 18% and compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for the alleged harassment.
The claimant's mother, Tulsi Bouri, was an employee of ECL and had been appointed on compassionate grounds following the death of her husband. On September 8, 2000, Tulsi Bouri applied for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and General Health Scheme (GHS). However, before her application could be processed, she passed away on November 26, 2000.
On December 14, 2000, the claimant, who described herself as the widowed daughter and sole dependant of the deceased, applied for compassionate appointment. On March 14, 2001, she submitted her attestation forms, biodata, and other relevant documents. Discrepancies in the service records, including the mention of other legal heirs, became a central point of contention.
A screening committee was constituted to verify her claim, and she appeared before the committee on multiple occasions. The claimant refused an offer of MMCC of Rs. 3,000 per month on April 22, 2003, and insisted on employment. In 2005, she also obtained and submitted a succession certificate. Despite this, her application remained undecided.
Years later, in August 2024, she filed a fresh representation seeking MMCC, stating that she had surpassed the eligible age for appointment and faced financial hardship. She then filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the single bench, directing ECL to pay MMCC from the date of death of the deceased employee along with 6% interest. Both parties appealed this decision.
ECL submitted that the claimant had failed to prove her sole dependency status and had neglected to furnish "No Objection Certificates" from other listed legal heirs. They argued that a Supreme Court judgment had held MMCC should be granted for three years prior to the filing of the writ petition and not for the entire period from the death.
The claimant, on the other hand, argued that she had complied with all procedural requirements and that her application had been kept in limbo by the employer for 24 years. She submitted that her name was included in the status list of the employer's records and stated that her prolonged struggle had deprived her of her rightful relief.
The dispute, therefore, cantered on the interpretation and application of clauses under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), particularly 9.3.2, 9.3.3, and 9.5.0, which govern employment and monetary compensation to dependents.
The Division Bench observed that "the appellant authority under the garb of processing of the application and taking advantage of the silence on the part of the respondent for these long 10 years showed ample apathy over the issue of giving employment or the monetary compensation to the claimant and thereby failed to implement the scheme."
The court found that the screening committee's report dated August 27, 2001, had already confirmed the genuineness of the claimant's application, stating, "the committee was of the opinion that she is the only surviving member of Late Tulsi Bouri and her claim is a genuine one." Yet, despite this positive assessment, the authority took no decisive action.
On the issue of delay, the court recorded: "The conduct of the appellant therefore never appeared to be for the benefit of the family of the deceased and cannot be appreciated in terms of the basic principles behind such scheme which was only to mitigate the financial issues occurs on account of sudden death of the sole earning member."
It also rejected the employer’s argument that the delay was attributable to the claimant. "The argument that the claimant ought to have been more careful while giving the reply regarding other family members as raised by the Authority cannot be accepted as the court cannot be oblivious of the fact that both Tulsi Bouri and the claimant were illiterate and it would have been really difficult for them to follow the procedure."
The Bench placed prominence on judicial precedents including Subhadra v. Ministry of Coal and Sukhomoni Hembram v. Union of India, affirming that "clauses 9.3.0 to 9.5.0 of the NCWA does not specify financial solvency or delay to be disqualifications for receipt of compassionate appointment or monetary compensation."
It referred to a judgment where the Supreme Court held, "Employment is assured to the dependant in terms of the Bipartite Agreement. If the female dependent opts for employment there is no further discretion left to the employer, unless she is otherwise ineligible." The Division Bench noted that the claimant was never found ineligible.
In assessing the legality of prolonged inaction, the court stated: "The silence on the part of the Authority for a prolonged period certainly dehors the purpose of the settlement as entered into and certainly that breaches the fundamental right of the claimant."
Addressing the contention that MMCC should be restricted to three years preceding the writ petition, the court held: "When in this case immediately after the death of the employee the widowed daughter made the application along with all the required documents... the claimant though furnished the documents failed to arrive at any conclusion." Therefore, the precedent cited by ECL was distinguished on facts.
It added: "The repeated demands for various documents suggest uncertainty about the exact requirements, leading to unnecessary delays in processing the application."
The Division Bench directed that the order passed by the single bench be modified only to the extent of the date from which MMCC is to be paid and the applicable rate of interest.
The court stated: "The arrear of the monetary compensation to be paid from September 2001 when the committee was of the opinion about the authenticity of the claim instead of the date of death of the deceased employee, along with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% and such payment is to be made on or before 15th July 2025."
The Bench dismissed ECL's appeal in its entirety and allowed the appeal of the claimant partly to the extent of enhancing the interest rate from 6% to 7.5%, while rejecting the prayer for 18% interest and Rs.10 lakh compensation.
The court concluded: "In view of the various judicial pronouncement, it is settled that the monetary compensation or compassionate appointment in terms of NCWA is not a matter of any bounty to be distributed by the authorities, but valuable rights of the workmen attached to the company and any delay in settlement and disbursement should be viewed seriously, and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest."
It also recorded that all other observations of the single judge would remain unaltered.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Advocate; Ms. Sanchita Barman Roy, Advocate; Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Partha Ghosh, Advocate; Mr. Simran Sureka, Advocate; Mr. Debashis Das, Advocate; Mr. Bratin Guin, Advocate
Case Title: Eastern Coalfields Limited and Ors vs. Mangali @ Mangala Bouri
Case Number: APOT 106 of 2025 with APOT 123 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das
