Calcutta High Court
Sulochana Hari vs M/S Eastern Coal Fields Limited And Ors on 10 July, 2026
OD-3
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
WPO/424/2025
SULOCHANA HARI
-VS-
M/S EASTERN COAL FIELDS LIMITED AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE REETOBROTO KUMAR MITRA
Date : 10th July, 2026.
Appearance:
Mr. Subhrangsu Panda, Adv.
Ms. Bratati Pramanick, Adv.
Ms. Haritri Roy, Adv.
Mr. Anupam Singha, Adv.
...for the Petitioner
Mr. Anup Kanti Poddar, Adv.
Ms. Anjali Shaw, Adv.
...for Respondents/ECL
1. The petitioner is the widow of one Subodh Hari , who was an
employee of the Kalipahari(R) Colliery under Satgram-Sripur area of
the Eastern Coalfields Limited, designated as U.G. Loader having
U.M. No. 119867, died in harness on 10.06.2010.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved that she has not been given the requisite
compensation, payable to her on account of the death of her
husband while in harness.
3. The facts are on a rather short conspectus. The petitioner claims to
be the duly recorded dependent of the late Subodh Hari as would
2
appear from the nomination form F which was deposited at the time
of the petitioner’s husband being employed in the said colliery.
4. The petitioner, upon the death of her husband sometime in 2010,
which was duly intimated by her, applied as the dependent by way
of a letter dated August 27, 2010 for employment along with all
requisite certificates including relationship certificate, certificate of
dependency, maintenance affidavit etc.
5. From 2010 till about filing of the writ petition in May 2025, the
petitioner had no intimation or any response from the respondent’s
authority regarding her application. The petitioner, claims to have
pursued her request for compassionate appointment through
several personal visits to the concerned office of the respondent’s
authority. None of these efforts from her end yielded any result. It
was only thereafter that the petitioner filed the instant writ petition
claiming the monetary compensation while exercising her option of
the death of her husband. Needless to mention that from 2010 till
2025, not only had the petitioner not been given employment on
compassionate ground, there was absolutely no response of any
nature whether in acceptance or in denial of the application of the
petitioner made by way of a letter dated August 27, 2010.
6. Since the petitioner had not received any response from the
respondent’s authority, she was constrained to make a second
3
representation on March 21, 2025, only this time, requesting them
to release the monetary compensation in lieu of employment with
effect from the date of death of the husband along with requisite
interest.
7. It was in that stage that this Hon’ble Court by an order dated June
24, 2025 directed the representation of the petitioner to be
considered by the respondent no. 5 in the light of the decision of
this Hon’ble Court and particularly in light of the decision in
Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors. v. Maya Bouri, rendered in WPO
33 of 2025. The said authorities , in due compliance of the direction
of the aforestated order, have passed a reasoned order on August 4,
2025 which has been brought on record by a supplementary
affidavit affirmed by the petitioner on March 20, 2026. It is this
reasoned order of August 4, 2025 which has been assailed as well in
this writ petition.
8. Mr. Panda, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, seeks to
explain these grounds as most frivolous and really an afterthought
in the following manner:-
i. The parties are guided by the bilateral agreement which
clearly records in clause 9.4.0 and subclause thereunder as
well clause 9.5.0 and subclause thereunder that a widow of
an employee who died in harness is entitled to two options.
4First she can accept compensation at a monthly rate as
stipulated (Rs. 30,000/-) or opt for compassionate
appointment in the place and instead of the employee who
died in harness. These options have to be exercised. Once
exercised, it is only that option to which the widow/female
dependent becomes entitled. Thus, if a person exercises the
option for compassionate appointment and is accordingly
appointed, she cannot claim the monthly compassionate
compensation. On the other hand if she applies for the
monthly compensation, she cannot seek appointment on
compassionate ground. One is in lieu of the other and not
jointly.
ii. In terms of these options given, the petitioner in the instant
case had applied for compassionate appointment in place of
her late husband. She also qualifies the only parameter,
which is, that the widow has to be below the age of 45
years. This application made on August 27, 2025 by the
petitioner had been kept pending and has not been
deliberated upon even today.
iii. The petitioner has not caused any delay in making the
application as Subodh Hari expired in 2010 and not in
2004. Thus, there is no gap or broken timelines as sought
to be explained by the respondents. Working in a coal mine
5which is underground and exhumes a lot of poisonous
gases including Methylamine, on account whereof mine
workers often fall ill and are subjected to severe treatment
which takes substantial time. Subodh Hari was undergoing
a similar treatment on account whereof he had not attained
mine work from 2004 to 2010 and ultimately expired.
However, all his pensionary benefits were calculated till the
time of his death.
iv. Sulochana Hari, the petitioner, had been granted all the
benefits of Subodh Hari after his death. This was a clear
admission that Sulochana Hari was indeed the wife of
Subodh Hari and was accepted as such by the respondent
authorities.
v. Sulochana Hari and Sandhya Hari are one and the same
person. Sandhya was merely a pet name of Sulochana Hari
and the same has been duly supported by affidavits and
also an indemnity bond executed by her.
vi. The application made by the petitioner on August 27, 2010,
when she was entitled to be appointed on compassionate
ground was not considered at all. It had indeed, never been
rejected nor was the status or locus of the petitioner
“Sulochana Hari questioned”. If there was indeed a dispute
6or doubt regarding the status and locus of Sulochana Hari
the authorities were under an obligation to seek a
clarification from the petitioner as to her status. No such
clarification was ever sought for.
vii. There are documents on record which are with the
respondent namely the nomination form submitted for
payment of gratuity by Subodh Hari, which clearly mention
Sulochana Hari as his wife. If indeed the respondents , were
of the opinion that there were discrepancies between the
name of the nominated person and the name of the
recorded wife in the gratuity form, the same ought to have
been clarified by the respondents by seeking appropriate
answers from the petitioner. This had never been done.
There is thus, no answer to the issue that the application of
the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment had ever
been considered. Only if it had been considered would these
issues arise. These issues have been raised, ostensibly as
an afterthought only upon this Hon’ble Court directing the
matter to be considered by the appropriate authority
(respondent no. 5 herein).
viii. Once the petitioner became disentitled, upon crossing the
age of 45 years, she applied afresh in 2025 for monetary
compensation.
7
ix. Thus, the respondents cannot on the one hand keep the
application of the petitioner pending and at the same time
permit the timelines to be completely decimated to say that
the application for monetary compensation cannot be
considered as there was a delay in applying for the same.
x. These issues of delay and of making an application have
been addressed and conclusively decided by several
judgments relied upon by the petitioner. The decisions of
the Special Bench in Putul Rabidas v. Eastern Coalfields
Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2019) 2 CHN 662 (LB), and Eastern
Coalfields Limited v. Sumi Kamin and Ors., reported in 2024
SCC OnLine Cal 7573, have in no uncertain terms and with
sufficient clarity decided on the issues of entitlements of the
female dependent to obtain either compassionate
appointment or monetary compensation.
xi. He has also placed reliance on the decision in M/s. Eastern
Coal Fields Ltd. & Ors. v. Smt. Dukhni Bhuiya in the case of
MAT 86 of 2022 and Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Premlata
Singh & Ors. in the case of FMA 1033 of 2023 to establish
his point that delay is not a deciding factor, particularly
when such delay is not attributable to the female
dependent.
8
xii. The delay in this case of the 15 years from 2010 to 2025
cannot in any manner be attributed to the petitioner as she
was expecting that the respondents would consider and
dispose of her case within a reasonable timeline. In fact,
she had visited the respondent’s concerned offices / officers
on several occasions without any result whatsoever.
m. It has also been conclusively decided by the Hon’ble
Court in the aforestated decisions that the payment of
compensatory allowance will not be from the date of the
application but from the date of death as decided…..
xiii. None of these issues were considered by the authority while
passing the impugned order dated August 4, 2025.
9. On these aforestated facts, the respondents have held that the
petitioner is not entitled to payment of MMCC.
10. The issues raised by Mr. Poddar appearing for the the respondent
authorities are set forth as under:
a. The last working date of Subodh Hari was June 30, 2004, while
his death certificate records his date of death as June 10,
2010, thereby leaving an gap of six years.
9
b. The nomination form contains the name of the spouse of
Subodh Hari as Sandhya Hari for employment in case of
premature death of Subodh Hari. This petitioner, Sulochana
Hari , is not mentioned in the nomination form.
c. The application of the petitioner of August 27, 2010,
(inadvertently referred to as August 26, 2010 in the impugned
order) was not found in the records of the respondent.
d. There is also a delay of about 15 years (from 2010 to 2025) by
the petitioner in seeking the compensation on account of the
death of Subodh Hari.
11. This order disposing of the representation rejected Sulochana’s
prayer for Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation primarily on the
following grounds:
(a) The delay caused in making the application, since Subodh died
in 2010 and the application for Monthly Monetary Cash
Compensation was made by Sulochana in 2025;
(b) The application by Sulochana cannot be established or rather
created a conundrum as to whether Sulochana was not the
legally married wife of Subodh. The conundrum arose in view of
the fact that in one of the supporting documents submitted by
Subodh with the authorities, name of the wife has been shown
as ‘Sandhya’;
10
(c) There was also an issue of delay raised since the last working
day of Subodh in ECL was sometime in 2004 while he expired
in 2010.
12. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and
perused the documents as well as the judgments relied upon by the
parties.
Admitted facts of this case are :
(i) Subodh was an employee of ECL;
(ii) Subodh expired sometime in 2010;
(iii) An application for compassionate appointment was indeed
made by Sulochana in 2010, 2 months after the death of
Subodh;
(iv) No person by the name of Sandhya or by any other identity
has ever approached ECL to stake a claim for compassionate
appointment or for any other benefit which accrued to
Subodh or his family members after his death;
(v) The reasoned order of August 4, 2025 does not take into
account the documents which have been produced by
Sulochana in this writ petition and the supplementary
affidavit appended thereto;
(vi) The authorities have disbursed payment on account of
gratuity without any protest or demur in favour of
Sulochana;
11
(vii) The authorities have idled away a considerable time from
2010 to 2025 whiling a period of 15 years which disentitled
Sulochana for compassionate appointment for which she
had applied in 2010.
13. The order assailed herein dated August 4, 2025 records the
following issues :
i) There is no claim for employment or MMCC by any of the
defendants as mentioned in the service record of Subodh;
ii) The last working day of Subodh was 30th June, 2004 and the death
certificate is of 10th June, 2010;
iii) The name of Sulochana as wife of Subodh is not found anywhere in
the service book of the deceased employee;
iv) The application of Sulochana dated 26th August, 2010 is not found
in the record of the ECL;
v) Sulochana has not claimed PF refund or pension settlement for the
last 15 years.
14. On the basis of these aforesaid factual findings, the authorities
proceeded to reject the application of Sulochana.
15. The order is found wanting as the writ petition has disclosed the
application of Sulochana for compassionate appointment dated 26th
August, 2010, which has not been considered by the authorities.
The application appended to the writ petition has, however, not
been denied by the authorities passing impugned order. In fact,
12
there are several other documents including the certificate from the
local panchayat authority, the indemnity bond deposited by
Sulochana that she is the only legally married wife of Subodh and
the affidavit of Sulochana dated 17th October, 2011 has been
completely glossed over. The authorities have not taken into
account that merely because the application is not available in their
records does not lead to the conclusion that the application had not
been made. The ground that Sulochana is not mentioned in the
documents submitted by Subodh is not considered in light of the
fact that the authorities had already paid the gratuity amount
accrued to Subodh, to Sulochana. The authorities have proceeded
with a closed mind without taking such documents into record and
without considering the same.
16. The order of August 4, 2025 proceeds mechanically to reject the
claim of Sulochana simply on the ground that there has been a
delay in applying for Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation which
was made in 2025, since Subodh expired in 2010. This period of 15
years has been construed as a delay and a default ascribable to
Sulochana alone. Clearly, the impugned order does not take into
consideration the fact that the application of Sulochana for
compassionate appointment in 2010 was kept pending without any
reason by the authorities till 2025. Sulochana waited under a
legitimate expectation that her application would be dealt with in
accordance with the prevalent rules. It was only when she attained
13
the age of 45, thus disentitling her from compassionate
appointment that she made an application for Monthly Monetary
Cash Compensation and thereafter approached this Hon’ble Court.
The delay cannot be ascribed to Sulochana alone. These issues have
not been addressed in the order impugned of August 4, 2025.
17. At the same time, as a Court exercising jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India in judicial review, this Court has to
take a cautious approach. It is not for this Court to determine or
embark on an investigation or enquiry as to the identity of
Sulochana or even the existence of Sandhya. These are the matters
best left to the experts.
18. In view of the afore-stated observation and finding, order dated
August 4, 2025 is set aside.
19. The authorities are directed to revisit the issue afresh. However, the
authorities will engage a person who will pursue and investigate
through local police authorities to determine the identity of
Sulochana. Identity of Sulochana should be restricted to the issue
as to whether she is the legally married wife of late Subodh Hari, a
former employee of ECL.
20. Officer-in-Charge of Raniganj Police Station is directed to cause
investigation either by himself or through an authorized officer not
14
below the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police and to prepare and file a
report with the ECL authorities within a period of 4 weeks from the
date of an application being made to him by the authorized Officer
on behalf of ECL. This application should be made by July 31,
2026.
21. The respondent no.4 is directed to conduct a hearing upon adequate
prior notice to the petitioner who will be represented before the
concerned authorities through an authorized representative and will
be entitled to present all documents pertaining to her identity as the
wife of Subodh Hari at the time of hearing and that Sulochana and
Sandhya are one and the same person.
22. Respondent no.4 will conclude the entire process within a period of
4 weeks from the date of receipt of the report from the Officer-in-
Charge of the Raniganj Police Station. I also make it clear that the
respondent no.4 will proceed strictly on the basis of the prevalent
rules and guidelines of ECL and will consider this case in the light
of Maya Bouri of this Hon’ble Court in APOT/205/2025 (E.C.L.
Vs. Maya Bouri) which stipulates that the Monthly Monetary Cash
Compensation will be payable to the dependent from the date of
death of the former employee on account of whom such claim is
made.
15
23. In the event, the resultant order is in favour of the petitioner,
consequently, payments shall be made over to the petitioner within
a period of two weeks from date of passing of such order along with
interest at a reasonable rate in consonance with the rates given by
nationalized bank on fixed deposit.
24. The petitioner is entitled to such interest in view of the fact that the
respondent authorities have kept the application of Sulochana
pending for 15 years, without deciding the issue.
25. With the afore-stated directions, the writ petition being
WPO/424/2025 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to
costs.
26. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite
formalities.
(REETOBROTO KUMAR MITRA, J.)
sp3
