IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.25875 OF 2000 DATED:14-02-2011 Between: Smt. Vangala Bharathi … Petitioner And Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd., Rep. by Chairman & Managing Director Bellgampalli, Adilabad District and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.25875 OF 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the proceedings No.MVK.1/WO/00/1028, dated 23.5.2000 issued by the third respondent - Colliery Manager, MVK No.1 Incline, Singareni Colleries Company Limited, in refusing to pay monetary compensation to the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to provide monetary compensation to her in accordance with the National Coal Wage Agreement – V (NCWA-V) in lieu of female dependant employment with all consequential benefits. It appears the petitioner’s husband - V. Anantha Reddy died in a road accident in harness while serving in Singareni Colleries Company Limited on 16.6.1989. The petitioner made an application to the respondents for providing dependant employment by enclosing legal heir certificate dated 19.12.1990, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bellampalli. However, on the ground that there was a rival claim, the petitioner was directed to get Succession Certificate from the competent Civil Court. The petitioner approached the Court of Principal District Munsif, at Karimnagar, and obtained Succession Certificate, dated 28.11.1995, in O.P. No.262 of 1995. The petitioner submitted the same to the respondents along with a representation dated 15.2.1996. By proceedings dated 27.3.1996 the respondents informed the petitioner there her application was examined in detail, as per the Circulars in vogue, and it was found that she was not entitled for dependant employment. Further, she was advised to submit an application for dependant employment for a male dependant. Since the petitioner has no male dependant, she submitted another application dated 29.8.1996 stating that her husband, Vangala Anantha Reddy, who was working as a coal filler at MVK-1 Incline of Bellgampalli Area, was expired on 16.6.1989 due to motor vehicle accident while serving the Company and immediately she applied for dependant’s job but her case was not considered. The management has issued a letter directing the petitioner to get declaration from the competent Civil Court that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of late Anantha Reddy and even after obtaining such succession certificate her case was not considered. Hence, she requested the respondents to consider the matter sympathetically and arrange to provide her a job in the company. The said representation, dated 29.8.1996, was also considered and rejected by the respondents on 7.8.1997 stating that the provision for providing employment to female dependants has been withdrawn with effect from 02.10.1991 and the cases pending prior to 02.10.1991 were also not considered in accordance with item No.10 of Sec.No.P 40/5036/IR/219, dated 27.1.1992. As such, her request for dependant employment was again rejected. Having no other option, she filed another representation on 02.11.1999 for payment of lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of female dependant employment etc. This was also rejected by the respondents by letter dated 23.5.2000. Therefore, this writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed denying the allegations made by the petitioner and it is asserted in the counter filed by the respondents that firstly there is delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in filing this writ petition; secondly as on the date of death of the husband of the petitioner, i.e., 16.6.1989 there was no scheme available and therefore the case of the petitioner could not be considered either for providing employment on compassionate ground or additional monetary benefits in lieu of compensatory appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court National Coal Wage Agreement – V and drawn attention of the Court to Clause 9.5.0 of the said agreement which reads as under: “9.5.0. EMPLOYMENT/MONETARY COMPENSATION TO FEMALE DEPENDANT Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependants of workmen who die while in service and who are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated as under, (i) In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependant would have the option to either accept the monetary compensation of Rs.3,000/- per month or employment irrespective of her age. (ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to causes other than mine accident and medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0., if the female dependant is below the age of 45 years she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs.2,000/- per month or employment. In case the female dependant is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment. (iii)In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 15 years and above in age he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii) above. (iv) Monetary compensation, wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependant attains the age of 60 years. (v) The rate of monetary compensation which stands at Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/- per month as mentioned above would be reviewed w.e.f. 01.07.1996. (vi) The rate of monetary compensation will be reviewed as and when new wage agreements are finalized. NOTE: In the case of TISCO, the matter would be settled at bipartite level. This would supersede all past agreements, circulars and instructions issued on the subject in so far as the issues are covered by the provisions hereinabove.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the petitioner is not entitled for employment, at least she must be paid monetary compensation, and even this was not done. National Coal Wage Agreement – V, dt.11.11.1994 contemplates as to providing such a scheme. May be the local colleries also can make policy decisions but that does not mean that they can deny the benefit to the petitioner saying that as on the date of the death of the husband of the petitioner there was no scheme and therefore she is not entitled for the benefit of the scheme. The respondents cannot also contend that the petitioner has approached this Court after eleven-and- half years therefore not entitled for the benefit, as the dates as noticed above indicate that the petitioner has been consistently pursuing the matter with the respondents either for providing employment on compassionate ground or for monetary compensation as required under the Rules. Merely because the scheme was evolved which is admittedly in pursuance of the National Coal Wage Agreement – V, it cannot be said that the same is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. Once the Wage Agreement itself contemplates as to providing employment on compassionate ground or monetary compensation in lieu of employment, it is the bounden duty of the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, either for the purpose of compassionate appointment or for providing monetary compensation. For more than twenty years the petitioner has been fighting for her cause. The petitioner may not be entitled for being appointed to any post, but definitely she is entitled for monetary compensation as contemplated under the Wage Agreement. Under these circumstances, the respondents are directed to provide monetary compensation to the petitioner, as per the National Coal Wage Agreement – V and the scheme evolved by the respondents Singareni Collieries Company Limited, and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ (C.V. RAMULU, J) 14-2-2011 bnr