1 2025:CGHC:48389 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9190 of 2019 Ravi Chautel S/o Late Ram Malin Chautel, Aged About 34 Years, Ward No. 15, West Nepal Gate, Charcha, Baikunthpur, Shivpur, Charcha, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner. versus 1. South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 3. Deputy Regional Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Charcha Colliery, Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 4. Chief Medical Officer, Charcha Colliery, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents. For Petitioner : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Adv on behalf of Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2025.09.26 18:49:17 +0530 2 SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 19.09.2025 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs:- “i. To kindly direct the respondent authorities to grant the petitioner compassionate appointment in the place of the petitioner’s deceased father with all consequential benefits. ii. To kindly make any other order/s that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner was an employee of the respondent, he passed away on 14.12.2017 while holding the post of Safai Karmchari bearing NISL No.22482321 at Regional Hospital, Charcha Colliery, District Koriya. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application for dependent employment on 09.05.2018 in terms of Memorandum of Agreement, National Coal Wage Agreement-VI (fort short the “NCWA-VI”). Application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent/Authority only on the ground that petitioner has already crossed the maximum age of 35 years prescribed for considering him for dependent employment. Learned counsel submits that by letter/order Annexure-P/1 dated 01.04.2019 respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner stating that in the service book, father of the petitioner has mentioned the age of 3 petitioner as 10 years on 25.01.1988 accordingly petitioner has crossed the maximum age prescribed for dependent employment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that age mentioned in the service book cannot be considered as proof of age of the petitioner. Application of the petitioner was rejected without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. According to school register and date of birth mentioned in Classs- IV mark-sheet, on the date of filing of the application i.e. 09.05.2018, he was of 34 years and, therefore, on the date of filing of application the petitioner was entitled for his consideration for dependent employment. However, the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to prove the age by submitting admissible documents. In view of such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appropriate direction may be issued to respondents authorities in this regard. 4. Countering the above submission, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the entries made in the service book of the deceased employee (father of the petitioner) is based on information given by deceased employee, therefore, age mentioned in the service book has been treated as the actual age on the date of giving information and entering into service book. He further submits that the entries were made in the year 1988, therefore, on the date of filing of the application, petitioner has 4 crossed the maximum age as provided under Clause 9.3.4 of NCWA-VI. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused documents annexed with the writ petition. 6. Petitioner has filed copy of admission register with covering memo of Government Primary School, Kurasiya, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Surguja pertaining to the year 1989. In the said copy of register, name of petitioner is mentioned at Sr. No.34 and his date of birth is mentioned as 04.03.1984. 7. Petitioner has also filed mark-sheet of Class-IV pertaining to the year 1993 of Government Primary School, Kurasiya and in the said document also, entry number of petitioner in register is mentioned as 84 and date of birth as 04.03.1984. 8. The respondents along with their reply have enclosed copy of the service book as Annexure-R/1, in which, name of family members of deceased employee is mentioned i.e. Tara Bai as Wife, Bablu, Rabi and Chandan as sons, Sunita Bai and Sakun to be daughters. In front of names, their age is also mentioned. However, date of birth of each of legal heirs of the deceased employee is not specifically mentioned. 9. Merely mentioning age of a person in any of the service record could not be a proof of his date of birth. Age of a person for the purpose of considering employment is to be determine based on 5 the birth certificate, Kotwar Register, mark-sheet of 10th or 12th Standard or the school admission register, which are admissible documents and maintained by the government officials in discharge of duty. 10. Further, in the case at hand, respondents have not called for the date of birth of the petitioner by issuing any notice. Application was rejected unilaterally. Had the petitioner been given an opportunity of hearing by way of notice to submit relevant document regarding proof of age, the petitioner would have submitted the documents mentioning the date of birth as placed before this Court i.e. school register and mark-sheet. 11. Respondents in reply to writ petition have not filed any document to show that the petitioner was served with letter, asking him to submit document showing date of birth, but pleaded that petitioner failed to show any valid proof of his date of birth, which in the facts of the case is per se arbitrary. 12. The respondents have issued guidelines for determination of age at the time of appointment under Implementation Instruction No.76 for determining age of applicant at the time of appointment who are non-matriculates but educated. It is provided that “in the case of appointees who have pursued studies in a recognized educational institution, the date of birth recorded in the School 6 Leaving Certificate, shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances”. 13. In the case at hand, from the documents placed along with writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner falls in the category of non-matriculates but educated. He has placed on record the copy of school register and copy of Class-IV mark-sheet mentioning his date of birth. In the aforementioned facts of the case, respondents have acted arbitrary in not giving him an opportunity to submit relevant documents in support of the application or have not conducted any enquiry to ascertain the age of the petitioner on the date of application, but have only considered the age mentioned in the service book at one place without there being date of birth available in the service book of deceased employee. 14. As in this case, petitioner was not given any opportunity to submit any relevant documents regarding his qualifications or other documents in proof of his age, in the considered opinion of this Court, the decision of respondents Authority in rejecting the application of the petitioner for dependent employment suffers from violation of principle of natural justice and, therefore, the same is not sustainable. 15. In view of the above, the impugned order/letter dated 01.04.2019 is set-aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of petitioner for dependent employment by giving notice to the 7 petitioner to submit all the relevant documents which are required for consideration of the dependent employment and only thereafter the concerned authority of the respondents shall take decision afresh in accordance with law including norms and procedure applicable for determining age. 16. However, keeping in view that the application for dependent employment was submitted in the year 2018, the respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner within a further period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ajay.