1 2025:CGHC:52300 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1796 of 2022 Narendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Purushottam Sahu Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Village Bhedikona , Police Station Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director , Seepat Road, Sarkanda District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Chief General Manager S.E.C.L., Raigarh Area, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Manager (Personnel) S.E.C.L., Baroud Sub Area, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Deputy Regional Manager (Personnel) S.E.C.L. , Baroud Sub Area, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Gangotri Bai W/o Johan Lal Sahu Resident Of Village And Post Devarghata , Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. K. P. S. Gandhi, Advocate For Res. Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate For Res. No. 5 : None appears, though served 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 27/10/2025 1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs : “10.1.That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order, thereby setting aside-quashing the impugned order dated 04.12.2021 (AnnexureP/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Brief facts reflected in the writ petition are that father of the petitioner namely Purushottam Sahu was working as Electrical Helper Category- II under respondent No. 1 and he died during the course of employment in harness on 22.08.2019. Thereafter, on 15.02.2020, the petitioner, being son of late Purushottam Sahu, applied for grant of compassionate appointment and on the date of filing said application, the petitioner was less than 34 years of age. Vide letter dated 20.02.2020, the respondent no. 4 has directed the mother of petitioner to give her consent for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter dated 20.02.2020, the mother & brother of petitioner have given their consent for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner, however, without applying mind, vide impugned order dated 04.12.2021, the respondent no. 3 has rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, on the ground that the petitioner is 35 years of age on the date of filing application dated 08.09.2021, therefore the petitioner is age barred for 3 obtaining compassionate appointment. 2.1 It is noteworthy to mention here that earlier vide order dated 08.01.2022, the respondent no. 3 has rejected the application of respondent no. 5 – Smt. Gangotri Bai for grant of compassionate appointment, on the ground that she is the married daughter of deceased employee and there is no statutory provisions prevailing in the SECL to provide compassionate appointment to the married daughter till availability of son of deceased employee. Subsequently, application filed by respondent no. 5 for grant of compassionate appointment is being considered by respondent No. 3 and directed to furnish relevant documents for providing compassionate appointment to her. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the son of Late Purushottam Kumar Sahu, who was working as Electrical Helper Category- II with respondent No. 1 and died in harness on 22.08.2019. After his death, the petitioner made an application on 15.02.2020 for providing him dependent employment in place of his father. He submits that the said application was rejected by the respondent authorities vide impugned order dated 04.12.2021 (Annexure P/1). Thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner’s mother on 08.09.2021 and she has also made an application for grant of dependent employment, however, those applications have been rejected holding that as per the conditions of the National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA) the petitioner has already completed 35 years of age, therefore, he was not entitled for dependent employment. He submits that there was some dispute with regard to grant of dependent employment with her mother and, therefore, when the dispute was settled, a fresh application was made by his mother and he himself in the year 2021, however, he had already 4 made his claim in the year 2020 vide Annexure P/2. He further submits that according to the High School Certificate examination of 2002, his date of birth mentioned in the said certificate as 06.02.1986 and at the time of making the first application i.e. on 15.02.2020, the petitioner was 34 years of age. Therefore, denying the petitioner for dependent employment by the respondent is bad in law, which requires to be set aside. 4. Per contra, Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for respondents/SECL submits that according to the conditions of NCWA, a male dependent, who has crossed the age of 35 years, would not entitle for consideration on dependent employment. He further submits that though the first application was made by the petitioner on 15.02.2020, the same was forwarded to his mother namely Smt. Kala Bai for her consent, which was denied and rather she herself made an application for grant of dependent employment, which was rejected on 08.01.2022 Annexure R/4. Thereafter, mother of the petitioner had also made an application for grant of dependent employment to her second son as well as to her married daughter which have also been rejected. He further submits that first right to get dependent employment to the wife of the deceased person and after her consent only, case of the petitioner could have been considered. When both of them made an application on 08.09.2021, the same was considered and on that day, the petitioner had already crossed the age of 35 years. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order. 5. Replying to it learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that now the dispute between family members of the deceased employee has also come to an end and all the siblings and her mother submitted their consent for appointment and a consent letter has also been executed, which is also filed 5 alongwith the application for taking document on record. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. There is no dispute to the fact that father of the petitioner was working as Electrical Helper Category-II with the respondents -SECL and died in harness on 22.08.2019. It is also not in dispute that initially the petitioner made an application on 15.02.2020 to the respondents No. 1 to 4 for grant of dependent employment. It is also not in dispute that the date of birth of the petitioner is 06.02.1986 and on the date of making the first application for grant of compassionate appointment before the respondents - authorities, the petitioner was less than 35 years of age. Of course, the mother of the petitioner objected to grant dependent employment to the petitioner, however, it appears from the documents appended with the application for taking document on record, the dispute amongst siblings and the mother of the petitioner has come to an end and they have also consented for grant of dependent employment to the petitioner. The impugned order indicates that the subsequent application made by the petitioner for dependent employment in the year 2021 has been rejected treating him to be more than 35 years of age. But the facts remains that on account of some dispute arose between the family members of the deceased employee, which subsequently have been resolved, the petitioner cannot be deprived of grant of dependent employment in light of conditions of policy of NCWA, when the petitioner has already asserted his right in due course of time before he could have passed the age of 35 years of age. Of course, dependent employment has to be made in accordance with the policy of NCWA and when the policy itself provides that the candidate if had not passed the age of 35 years could have been considered for dependent 6 employment. 8. Taking into consideration the above stated facts and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that as the dispute between the family members of the deceased employee has already been come to an end, the denial of the claim of the petitioner for considering his case for grant of dependent employment, appears to be bad in law therefore, the impugned order Annexure P/1 is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for dependent employment in light of NCWA within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 10. Consequently, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.10.30 17:37:50 +0530