1 2025:CGHC:44436 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4879 of 2022  Shubhadra Kol W/o Shri Babulal Kol Aged About 31 Years Father-In-Law Late Shri Bhimsen Kol, R/o Kapildhara Colony Awas No. M/931, Post Bijuri, District Anuppur (M.P.) 484440 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Coal India Ltd Through Its Chaiman Coal India Ltd., 10-Netaji Subhash Road Calcutta (West Bengal) 2. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Chaiman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Area General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kapildhara Ug Mine, Kurja Sub Area Hasdev Area, Post Bijuri, District Anuppur (M.P.) 4. Deputy General Manager Kapildhara Ug Mine, Kurja Sub Area Hasdev Area, Secl, Post Bijuri District Anuppur (M.P.) 5. Deputy Personnel Manager Kapildhara Ug Mine, Kurja Sub Area Hasdev Area, Secl, Post Bijuri, District - Anuppur (M.P.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01. 09.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought 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 12/05/2022 Annexure-P/1 passed by respondent no. R/5 and directed to SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.02 17:19:21 +0530 2 respondent department to consider for compassionate appointment to the petitioner being daughter-in-law of decease employee Lt. Bhimsen. 10.3 That the respondent's i.e., the respondents and the R/1 to 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.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father-in-law of the petitioner was working with the respondents on the post of Driller, who died in harness on 01.03.2015. He would further submit that an application was moved for grant of dependent employment and it has been rejected by the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 12.05.2022. He would also submit that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra. This Court in the matter of Smt. Asha Pandey vs. CIL & Ors passed in WPS No. 4994 of 2015, held that daughter-in-law is also entitled for dependent employment. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would submit that the petitioner has not pleaded date of her marriage. He would further submit that the petitioner was required to plead specifically that she was married to the son of the deceased employee prior to death of her father-in-law. He would also submit that the application moved by the husband of the petitioner i.e. son of the deceased employee, was rejected in the year 2015 as he was more than 35 years of age, and after 7 years, the petitioner moved an application for dependent employment. He would further contend that the other formalities were also not completed by the petitioner. He would also contend that another dependent has also moved an application for dependent employment, which is pending. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. The application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the the daughter-in-law is not entitled for dependent employment. This Court in the matter of Smt. Asha Pandey vs. CIL & Ors passed in WPS No. 4994 of 2015, has held that daughter-in-law is entitled for dependent employment; therefore, the reason assigned by the respondent No. 4 is erroneous and contrary to the well settled principle of law, accordingly, the order dated 12.05.2022 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation fulfilling all criteria, and in turn, the competent authority is directed to consider the claim afresh and pass order strictly in accordance with the applicable policy, preferably within a period of 120 days. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant