1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7194 of 2018 1 - Smt. Savitri Devi W/o Late Ranglal Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Manpur, Post Office And Tehsil- Surajpur, Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman- Cum- Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sub Area Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bhatgaon Sub Area, Bhatgaon Area, Post Office- Bhatgaon Colliery, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Senior Manager (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bhatgaon Sub Area, Bhatgaon Area Post Office- Bhatgaon Colliery, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.12.09 12:22:31 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT) Order on Board 08.12.2025 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to a communication dated 29.03.2017 (Annexure-P/1) by which it has been intimated to the petitioner that her name is not recorded in the service book of the deceased employee namely Late Ranglal who was working with the respondents and therefore, her case for consideration on compassionate appointment cannot be considered. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Late Ranglal was working with the respondents as Tyndal and died in harness on 24.11.2004. He submits that the petitioner is the second wife of the deceased employee and his first wife left him by taking a customary divorce. There was some dispute with regard to the entitlement of the retiral dues of the deceased-petitioner, therefore, the petitioner filed a succession application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act before the Civil Judge, Class-I, Surajpur, District: Surajpur (C.G.) which was registered as Succession Case No. 11/ 2005, in which the first wife of the deceased employee was also arrayed as a respondent including the respondents herein. 3. The learned Civil Judge, vide its order dated 24.09.2012, granted the succession certificate by apportioning the retiral dues between the petitioner, her minor son and mother of the deceased and first wife of the deceased employee. As there was a dispute with regard to the succession-ship, the petitioner could not make any application prior to 3 that for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to the respondents for compassionate appointment and the mother of the deceased as well as the first wife of the deceased gave their consent and no objection for such appointment. The said application was rejected by the respondents vide impugned order holding that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the service book of the deceased employee. He submits that there was a customary divorce between first wife of the petitioner and she was also declared as a successor of deceased Ranglal by virtue of an order passed by the Civil Judge in the succession application, therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be denied only on the ground that her name is not recorded in service record of the deceased employee. Apart from this he submits that a medical card was prepared by the respondents in which the name of the petitioner as wife of the deceased employee as well as the name of her child was also mentioned as the son of the deceased employee. He submits that the litigation is pending from a long period of time and from that time she has crossed the age of appointment i.e. 45 according to NCWA Agreement. He further submits that the petitioners’ son was minor at that time and has not attained majority and instead of consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on consideration, a liberty may be reserved in favour of the son of the petitioner to move an application for appointment on compassionate ground by the respondents and on such application being made, the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the respondents, in accordance with law. 4. Opposing the same, Shri Bajpai submits that the name of the petitioner 4 was not recorded in the service record of the deceased-employee. He submits that in the succession certificate it is observed that petitioner is the second wife and she was earlier married to some other person, therefore, her case of compassionate appointment could not be considered. He submits that the petitioner has survived for so many years, therefore, petition suffers from delay and latches, therefore, the relief as prayed cannot be granted even the petitioners’ son cannot be allowed to make an application. 5. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the original record was produced before this Court by Shri Bajpai. From perusal of the record, it appears that the succession certificate given by the competent civil court, the compliance of the same has also been made in which the petitioner was shown to be the wife of the deceased employee and Akhilesh Kumar was shown to be the son of the deceased. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute to the fact that the deceased employee namely Ranglal was working with the respondents and died in harness on 24.11.2004. From the record it appears that Ranglal was earlier married to one Meena Kumari and some dispute with regard to payment of the retiral dues was also there between the petitioner, her son, mother of the deceased and his first wife Meena Kumari. It appears that an application for succession certificate was moved by the petitioner along with her son and the mother of the deceased in which the said Meena Kumari and the respondents were party to it. After hearing the parties to the litigation, the learned Civil Judge has granted a succession certificate apportioning the retiral dues amongst them. Thus, it covers that learned competent civil Court has found that 5 petitioner being a successor of the deceased employee is also entitled to share in the retiral dues. It appears from the record that the mother of the deceased as well as the first wife has given a consent for consideration of the case of the petitioner on compassionate appointment. From perusal of record, it appears that the litigation is pending from the long considerable period of time. It is to be seen that the petitioners’ son was minor at the time of litigation has now attained majority. In the interest of justice, this Court is of the opinion that a liberty may be reserved in favour of the petitioner’s son to move an application before the respondents for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment which will be considered by the respondents in accordance with law. 8. Thus, instead of setting aside the order dated 29.03.2017 (Annexure- P/1), this Court reserves the liberty in favour of son of the petitioner to move an application for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment, within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, which shall be decided by the respondents, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of its presentation. 9. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner would not come as a bar in deciding the case of the petitioner’s son. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Saurabh