SEEMA Vs. MANGANESE ORE INDIA LTD.
LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-37
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on March 09,2016

SEEMA Appellant
VERSUS
Manganese Ore India Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, advocate for the petitioner and Shri G.G. Modak, advocate for the respondent.
(2.) This case shows the apathy of the widow of an employee working in the executive cadre with the respondent -Corporation which is a Government of India Undertaking.
(3.) It is admitted fact that the petitioner's husband Mohammad Arif was appointed as Graduate Trainee Engineer with the respondent -Corporation on 21st September, 1988 and in due course of time held post of Senior Manager (Mines) which is an executive post. While posted at Tirodi Mines, Distt. Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh) he was missing since 20th November, 2000. According to the petitioner, Mohammad Arif had gone to duty on 20th November, 2000 and did not return. The facts on the record show that the officers of the respondent -Corporation had informed the petitioner by the communication darted 10th December, 2000 that Mohammad Arif had left the place of work on 20th November, 2000 and had not reported on duty thereafter. On receiving the communication the petitioner filed complaint dated 14th December, 2000 with the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur and a complaint with the police authorities at Balaghat on 15th December, 2000. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 2945/2003 before this Court against the respondent -Corporation seeking directions against the respondent -Corporation to pay to the petitioner, the terminal benefits receivable by Mohammad Arif. The respondent -Corporation opposed the claim of the petitioner. This Court by the order dated 15th September, 2003 disposed the writ petition observing that the question of payment of family pension would not arise unless it is established that Mohammad Arif is dead and the petitioner is legally wedded wife of Mohammad Arif. As the respondent -Corporation disputed the status of petitioner as legally wedded wife of Mohammad Arif and as the respondent -Corporation did not accept the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that it cannot be treated that Mohammad Arif was dead, the petitioner filed Regular Civil suit No. 780/2009 seeking declaration that Mohammad Arif suffered civil death as his whereabouts were not known for more than 7 years from 20th November, 2000. The Regular Civil Suit No. 780/2009 came to be decreed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur on 30th April, 2010. Though the petitioner appraised the respondent -Corporation about the decree passed by the Civil Court, the respondent -Corporation has not redressed the grievance of the petitioner. In the meantime, the respondent -Corporation initiated an enquiry against Mohammad Arif because of his continuous absence, conducted ex -parte enquiry and issued order on 11th August, 2004 dismissing Mohammad Arif from service on the ground that he was unauthorizedly absent for 110 days. The respondent -Corporation is denying the claim of petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds for the reason that Mohammad Arif has not died during the course of employment, that Mohammad Arif was working in executive cadre and the rules do not enable the respondent - Corporation to provide compassionate appointment to the dependent of employee working in executive cadre and on the ground that Mohammad Arif being dismissed employee his dependent is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.