1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4513 of 2022 1 - Sunita Singh D/o Late Shri Lal Ji Singh Aged About 37 Years On The Date Of Application (01/06/1984) Years, Lt. Father Posted As Bhu Tramer, West Jhagrakhand Colliery, Hasdev Area S.E.C.L. West Jhagrakhand Colliery, R/o Ward No. 07, Line Dafai, Village Khongpani, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh Pin 497442, Mobile No. 9336262966., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Coal India Ltd Through Its Chairman 10 Netaji Subhash Road Calcutta (West Bengal) 2 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Area General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdev Area, District Koria Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Area Manager In The Office Of The Dgm (M) Jhagrakhand Sub Area, Hasdev Area, West Jharkhand Colliery South Eastern Coalfields Limited, District Koria Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate For respondents : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18. 08.2025 2 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be called the entire record of the present petitioner from the respondent department for compassionate appointment. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be set-aside the impugned order dated 18/12/2021 Annexure P/12 and directed to respondent department to consider for compassionate appointment. 10.3 That the respondent's i.e., the respondents and the R/3 & R/4 be directed to consider and allowed the petitioner case for compassionate appointment. 10.4 Cost of the petition be allowed. 10.5 Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court feels fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner was working on the post of ‘Trammer’ under the respondents, and he died in harness on 26.04.2015. An application for dependent employment was moved by the petitioner on 16.10.2021, and it was rejected by the Colliery Manager vide order dated 18.11.2021 on the ground that the petitioner was more than 35 years of age on the date of consideration. 4. Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that initially, a civil suit claiming therein succession certificate was filed by the brother of the petitioner, and it was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 06.01.2017, and thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for dependent employment on 16.10.2021. He would further submit that when the civil suit was filed, the age of the petitioner was 35 years, and the said date should have been taken into consideration by the respondent authorities while considering the application of the petitioner for dependent employment. He would contend that, according to the National Coal Wages Agreement-VI (for short ‘the NCWA’), the petitioner is entitled 3 to be considered for a dependent’s employment up to the age of 45 years, as she is the daughter of the deceased employee. He would pray to quash the order dated 18.11.2021 issued by the Colliery Manager. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh. He would submit that Clause 9.3.2 of the NCWA deals with the employment of one dependent of the worker who dies while in service, and Clause 9.3.4 of the NCWA deals with the criteria for consideration. He would further submit that the age limit of a candidate for dependent employment has specifically been prescribed under Clause 9.3.4 of the NCWA, and the maximum age has been fixed as 35 years for dependents other than the spouse. He would also contend that for a female spouse, the maximum prescribed age is 45 years. He would further contend that the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased employee; therefore, she would not come within the purview of Clause 9.3.4 of NCWA. He would submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. To consider the right of the petitioner under Chapter-IX 'Social Security' under NCWA-VI, I find it appropriate to extract relevant Clauses of Chapter- IX under NCWA-VI, which is reproduced below for ready reference:- "9.3.2 Employment to one dependent of the worker who dies while in service In so far as female dependents are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation governed by para 9.5.0." would be "9.3.4 the dependents to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as given in Clause 9.5.0. In so far male spouse is concemed, there would be no age limit regarding 4 provision of employment." 8. From a bare perusal of the aforementioned two Clauses for employment to one dependent of an employee, the female dependents have been held entitled to the employment or, in alternative, payment of monetary compensation as per Clause 9.5.0. The age for considering a candidate for dependent employment has been specifically prescribed under Clause 9.3.4. The maximum age has been fixed to be 35 years for dependents other than spouse. For a female spouse, the maximum age is prescribed as 45 years. The petitioner is claiming her right for dependent employment under Chapter-IX of NCWA-VI, but she would be entitled for consideration up to the age of 35 years according to the above quoted provisions. 9. Admittedly, on 18.11.2021, the age of the petitioner was 37 years, 4 months, and 15 days; therefore, in my opinion, the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for the dependent employment. Thus, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha