1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8414 of 2018 1 - Harish Kumar Chouhan S/o Bed Ram Chouhan Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Chandrashekharpur, Edu, Police Station Chhal, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coal Filed Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, S.E.C.L. Headquarters, Seepat Road Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Area Personnel Manager South Eastern Coal Field Limited, Raigarh Area, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - General Manager (Mine)/ Sub Area Manager South Eastern Coal Field Limited, Sub Area Chhal, Raigarh Area, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Deputy Manager (Personnel) South Eastern Coal Field Limited, Chhal Sub Area, Raigarh Area, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5 - (Deleted), Sharan Bai As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-03-2024. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Govind Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court my kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned letter/order dated 10.11.2017 issued by the respondent no.3 i.e. General Manager (Mine)/Sub Area Manager, South Eastern Coal Field Limited, Sub Area Chhal, Raigarh Area, District Raigarh (C.G.) and pleased to direct the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4/ SECL would submit that there was a claim for compassionate appointment by the first wife and the children of the second wife of the deceased employee. He would contend that the first wife of the deceased employee has already expired. He would further submit that the claim of the petitioner would be considered by the respondent authorities in accordance with the law. He would also submit that the name of the petitioner is not recorded in the service record, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first wife and the son of the second wife of the deceased employee approached the SECL claiming therein compassionate appointment. He would contend that as the first wife of the deceased employee has already passed away, the respondent authorities may consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. He would further submit that there is 3 no need to submit a succession certificate before the authority concerned. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that there was a dispute between the first wife and the son of the second wife of the deceased employee, and the first wife has died issue less during the pendency of this petition, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. As the first wife of the deceased employee has already expired, there is no need to submit a succession certificate. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to take an appropriate decision on the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi