1 2025:CGHC:36563 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 184 of 2012  South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Thru Its Chairman And Md, H.Q. Seepat Road, Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh Khadan Karkana Mazdoor Union Anors S/o Thru Its General Secrty. Vill. And P.O. Banki Mongra, Dist. Korba C.G., Chhattisgarh 2. The Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial, Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Wright Town, Jabalpur M.P., District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate along with Ms. Azka Alam, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : None though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 28-07-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal–cum–Labour Court, Jabalpur, in Case No. CGIT/LC/R/36/96 dated 24.05.2012, whereby a reference made by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, dated 30.01.1996 has been decided in favour of the Union and a direction has been issued to the management of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. to provide dependent employment to the son of the deceased workman. 2 2) Facts of the present case are that Late Chauth Ram, who was working at Banki Colliery on the post of Timber Mistri, died in harness on 24.07.1972; the son of the deceased workman, namely Ashok Kumar, moved an application for the grant of dependent employment on 17.02.1989, but no action was taken. In the year 1994, respondent No. 1–Union raised a conciliation proceeding under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bilaspur, and the matter was referred by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, vide notification dated 30.01.1996 to the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal– cum–Labour Court, Jabalpur to decide the following issues:- (i) Whether the action of the management in not providing employment to the dependent of Late Chouth Ram, who died in the mine on 24-7-72, is justified? (ii) To what relief is Shri Ashok Kumar, the dependent, entitled to? 3) Statement of claim was filed by the respondent-Union to the effect that Late Chauth Ram was a regular employee of the petitioner- management and at the time of his death, his son, namely Ashok Kumar, was a minor and after attaining the majority, he approached the management for the grant of dependent employment. The provision of dependent employment was introduced for the first time in the National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA) – II on 01.01.1979, according to which, the dependents who were minors at the time of the death of their parents/workmen cannot be denied compassionate appointment. The management filed its written statement and denied the allegations. It was stated that the Late Chauth Ram met with an accident on 24.07.1992 and died on the same date. It was further stated that at the 3 time of his death, there was no provision to provide dependent employment to the dependents of the deceased workman. 4) Learned Tribunal vide award dated 24.05.2012 held that the provision to provide dependent employment was introduced through NCWA–II dated 01.01.1979. Learned Tribunal further held that similarly situated persons, who were dependents of the deceased workmen, were offered appointment. Learned Tribunal placed reliance on other instances as one Late Subran, Timber Mistri died in an accident on 02.11.1974 and his son Shahettar Singh was given appointment on 01.08.1990; and one Late K. Munnaswami, Timber Mistri died in an accident on 20.04.1975 and his son Jai Shanker was given appointment on 30.09.1989. Learned Tribunal applying the principle of equality, passed the award in favour of the respondent-Union. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner-management submits that the workman Late Chauth Ram died on 24.07.1972, and at that time, there was no provision for providing dependent employment. He further submits that such a provision was introduced for the first time through NCWA–II, which came into effect on 01.01.1979, and the son of the late workman cannot claim negative equality/parity. He contends that the learned Tribunal has passed the award only on the ground that some of the dependents of the deceased workmen have been provided with dependent employment. He has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Versus Amit Srivas1 and Pankjeshwar Sharma & Ors. Versus State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors2. 6) There is no representation on behalf of the respondent-Union despite 1 . (2020) 10 SCC 496 2 . (2021) 2 SCC 188 4 the service of notice. 7) Heard. 8) Admittedly, Late Chauth Ram died in harness on 24.07.1972, and after attaining the majority, his son, namely Ashok Kumar, moved an application for the grant of dependent employment on 17.02.1989. The delay caused in moving the application has neither been explained by Ashok Kumar, nor has the issue of delay been considered by the Tribunal. Undisputedly, the application for the grant of dependent employment was moved on 17.02.1989 and the conciliation proceedings were initiated by the respondent-Union in the year 1994, the matter was referred by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India to the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal–cum–Labour Court, Jabalpur on 30.01.1996 i.e. after seven years from the date of the application. 9) Perusal of the record, including the award passed by the learned Tribunal, would show that the statement of claim moved by the respondent-Union has been allowed, and the reference has been answered in the affirmative only on the ground that some of the dependents of the deceased workmen were provided with employment by the management. It is not in dispute that there was no provision for dependent employment in the year 1972. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has survived since 1972 till 2012 for about 40 years before passing the award. 10)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amit Srivas (supra) has held that there is no inherent right to compassionate appointment which is based on certain criteria in terms of the applicable policy existing on the date of the demise of the employee, unless a 5 subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively, to provide succour to the needy family. It is further held that if some persons are given the benefit wrongly, the same cannot form the basis for claiming a similar relief, and the Right to equality under Article 14 is not negative. Relevant paras 16 and 21 are reproduced herein below:- 16. It is trite to say that there cannot be any inherent right to compassionate appointment but rather, it is a right based on certain criteria, especially to provide succor to a needy family. This has to be in terms of the applicable policy as existing on the date of demise, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively. Insofar as providing succor is concerned, unfortunately, since the demise of the late father of the respondent, 11 years have passed and really speaking, the aspect of providing succor to the family immediately does not survive. We have still examined the matter in the conspectus of the applicable policy. It is not in question that the Policy prevailing was one dated 18.8.2008. Clause 12.1 clearly proscribes work- charge/contingency fund and daily wager employees from compassionate appointment. The gravamen of the submission of the respondent is based on the classification of his late father as a permanent employee on account of having worked for more than 15 years and the consequent regularisation of his service. 21. The moot point, thus, is that having been granted increments, could a person be said to have reached the status of a regular employee? In order to answer this question, we may note that while considering this aspect in the aforesaid judgment, it was specifically opined that even “if some persons are given the benefit wrongly, that cannot form the basis of claiming the same relief. It is trite that right to equality under Article 14 is not in the negative terms.” We say so, not with the objective of giving a licence to the appellants to withdraw any of the benefits, which are already granted, and we make this unequivocally clear. However, we cannot at the same time make a conclusion that the status acquired is that of a regular employee upon having achieved the status of a permanent employee in service. 6 11) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pankjeshwar Sharma (supra) has held that a regular appointment not in conformity with recruitment rules cannot be allowed to perpetuate on the basis of such illegality committed by the State, and no one can claim negative equality under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Relevant para 24 is reproduced herein below:- 24. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence and has been consistently followed by this Court that the rules of recruitment to various services under the State or to a class of posts under the State, the State is bound to follow the same and to have the selection of the candidates to be made as per the scheme of recruitment rules and appointments shall be made accordingly. At the same time, all the efforts shall be made for strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under the recruitment rules. On the contrary, if any appointments are made bypassing the recruitment procedure known to law, will resulted in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court in State of U.P. and Others vs. Rajkumar Sharma and Others and later in Arup Das and Others vs. State of Assam and Others considered the question of filling up of vacancies over and above the number of vacancies advertised and held that the filling up of vacancies over and above the number of vacancies advertised would be violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the selectees could not claim appointments as a matter of right. This Court further held that even if in some cases appointments had been made erroneously or by mistake, that did not confer any right of appointment to another person as Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality and if the State or its authority had committed a mistake at any given stage, it cannot be forced to perpetuate the said mistake under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In a situation where the posts in excess of those advertised had been filled up in extraordinary circumstances, instead of invalidating the excess appointments, the relief could be moulded in such a manner so as to strike a just balance keeping 7 the interest of the State and the interest of the person seeking public employment depends upon the facts of each case for which no set standard can be laid down. 12) Evidently, the date of the death of the deceased workman is 24.07.1972, whereas the award was passed on 24.05.2012, and the interim order has been operating in favour of the petitioner- management since 10.12.2012. As Ashok Kumar, the son of the deceased workman has survived for more than 40 years prior to the date of the award and 13 years after the date of award, in the opinion of this Court, the benefit of compassionate appointment should not be extended to him in light of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matters of Amit Srivas (supra) and Pankjeshwar Sharma (supra). 13) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Apex Court in matters of Amit Srivas (supra) and Pankjeshwar Sharma (supra), the award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 24.05.2012 is hereby set-aside. 14) Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. Interim relief granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.30 14:11:01 +0530