High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 03 JH CK 0027

SABITRI DEVI vs CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 16 March 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
W. P. (S) No. 1920 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 341 words
1.

Order dated 06.08.2013 has not been challenged by the petitioners, however, they are seeking a direction for compassionate appointment of the

petitioner no.2 and payment of retiral dues with interest.

2.

The petitioner no.1 is the mother of the employee- Tulsi Das and petitioner no.2 is his brother. The employee died in harness on 17.12.2011.

The reasoned order dated 06.08.2013 would disclose that the deceased employee was married to one Sanju Devi. By the reasoned order claim for compassionate appointment, and payment of gratuity and CMPF amounts to the said Sanju Devi was declined and it was held that the petitioner no.1

is entitled for payment of gratuity and CMPF amounts. In the present proceeding the petitioners are seeking a direction for payment of post-retiral benefits to the petitioner no.1 as held vide order dated 06.08.2013, and compassionate appointment to the petitioner no.2. In W.P.(S) No.6470 of

2013 which was preferred by the said Sanju Devi challenging the reasoned order dated 06.08.2013, by an order dated 01.04.2015 a coordinate Bench of this Court has quashed order dated 06.08.2013 and the respondent no.2 was directed to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. On quashment of order dated 06.08.2013 this writ petition must be held not maintainable, for the prayers in this writ petition on compliance of order dated

01.04.2015, which, it is stated has been complied, cannot be granted and accordingly, it is dismissed. Mrs. Rakhi Rani, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that direction of the Writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 6470 of 2013 has not been complied by the respondent-authority, inasmuch as, a decision on the claim of the petitioners and the said Sanju Devi has not been taken in accordance with law. If that is the grievance of the petitioners,

it would constitute a separate cause of action for which the petitioners have different remedy in law.

3.

The writ petition, in view of order dated 01.04.2015 passed in W.P.(S) No.6470 of 2013 and upon compliance of the said order, is dismissed as not

maintainable.