2025:CGHC:9723 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 1279 of 2014 Mo. Rizwan, S/o. Lal Mohammed, aged about 28 Years, R/o Kachhi Mohalla, Ward No. 16, Dhanpuri, Distt. - Shehdol, Madhya Pradesh ---- Petitioner Versus Mukhya Prbandhak (Karmik/SS) South Eastern Coal Filed S/o Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Petitioner : Shri S.A.H. Rizvi, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on board 25/02/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief : (A) In view of the above circumstances his lordship may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/direction for quashing the impugned Annex P.l ánd directing him to consider the case of the petitioner's appointment in place-of father. (B) That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of screening committees reports and proposal filed which are in possession of respondent. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.03.06 17:25:21 +0530 -2- (C) That in view of the facts and circumstances any other relief which this Hon'ble may think proper such relief may also be granted. 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that, the petitioner is the son of Lal Mohammed who was working as Assistant Foreman with the respondents. He died in harness on 28/04/2004. As per the service record of Late Lal Mohammed, he left behind Smt. Sajjo B. (wife) and three sons i.e. Mohd. Ramzan, Mohd.Rehman and Mohd. Rizwan. It also appears from the record that Late Lal Mohammed also had second wife - Smt. Mehrunnisa. It appears that there was interse family dispute amongst the legal heirs of deceased Late Lal Mohammed with regard to grant of compassionate appointment. Later on, it appears that dispute was settled amongst themselves and legal heirs agreed for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, thereafter application was also made. The application was rejected by the S.E.C.L vide Annexure – P-1 inter-alia stating that case is more than 05 years old, therefore it cannot be considered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no delay as the deceased - Late Lal Mohammed had two wives and there was interse dispute among the family members with regard to grant of compassionate appointment and ultimately the relationship between the legal heirs became cordial and all of them have agreed for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground and for that purposes, they have also submitted the affidavits before the respondents. He further submits that neither any person on account of death of his father Lal Mohammed was appointed nor any compensation was paid which is also reflected from the certificate issued in this regard by the respondent vide Annexure P-7 dated 01/10/2012. He further submits that there is no delay on the part of the petitioner and the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for appointment on compassionate ground vide Annexure P-1 is bad in law which requires to be set- aside and respondents are required to be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. -3- 4. Learned Senior Advocate opposing the submission, submits that employee died on 20/08/2004 and the application was made after a considerable period of time which was rejected by the impugned order. Since the stale claim of the petitioner cannot be considered by this court, there is no illegality and irregularity committed by the respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. It is not in dispute that the deceased - Lal Mohammed was the father of the petitioner, that he was working in the S.E.C.L. as Assistant Foreman and died in harness on 20/08/2004. Record reflects that the deceased had two wives and three sons from the first marriage. It also reflects that Regional Screening Committee of Sohagpur area of respondent was constituted to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The report of S.E.C.L. (Personnel Department) screening Committee is appended vide Annexure – P-2. This Committee was consisting of Staff Officer, Senior Manager Finance and Establishment and Deputy General Manager (Personnel), S.E.C.L., Sohagpur area. From minutes of this meeting it is quite evident that a conscious decision was taken by the screening committee for recommending the name of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on account of death of Lal Mohammed. The screening committee also observed that initially the legal heirs of deceased - Lal Mohammed did not agree for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, therefore delay was caused. Thereafter, it appears that bypassing this recommendation, the impugned order was passed rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 7. Of Course the decision was taken by the respondent for rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that the case of the petitioner was 05 years old but at the same time this Court cannot lose site of the fact that in the year-2013 a conscious decision was taken by the Regional Level Screening Committee -4- recommending the name of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of deceased – Lal Mohammed, Assistant Foreman. Once a Committee which has considered the case of the petitioner in all respects including eligibility, and also given a finding that there was some family dispute as regards the appointment on compassionate ground among the family members of the deceased – Lal Mohammed, and later on the differences were sorted out and recommendation was made. Undoubtedly, the respondents committed an error in not relying upon such recommendation while passing the impugned order Annexure – P-1. Therefore, in the consider opinion of this Court, the impugned order Annexure -P-1 cannot be sustained and accordingly it is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in light of the recommendation (Annexure P-2) within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Petition is thus allowed. 8. No order as to cost. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish