1 2025:CGHC:52112-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 755 of 2025 1 - Smt. Praveen D/o Late Injor Say (W/o Rajram) Aged About 26 Years Occupation Housewife R/o Village And Post Badsara Police Station And Tahsil Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Indrakunwar @ Inkunwar Wd/o Late Injor Say Aged About 47 Years Occupation Housewife R/o Village And Post Badsara Police Station And Tahsil Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfield Ltd. Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Basant Vihar Seepat Road District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - The General Manager Chirmiri Sub Area Secl District- Koriya Chhattisgarh SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.10.27 17:18:17 +0530 2 3 - The Sub Area Manager Underground Mines, Chirmiri Sub Area District- Koriya Chhattisgarh 4 - The Deputy Manager HR/P Chirmiri Underground Sub Area District- Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellants : Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27.10.2025 1. Heard Shri Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants Also heard Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellants/writ petitioners assailing the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition WPS No. 949 of 2018, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner came to be dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the writ Court. 3 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that late Injor Say, father of petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2, was employed as an SDL Operator at Bartunga Colliery, SECL, and died in harness on 14.08.2006. After his death, both of his wives namely; Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Indrakunwar @ Inkunwar, claimed entitlement to compassionate appointment. The application filed by Smt. Shanti Devi was rejected by SECL on 11.11.2009 due to a dispute between the two wives, and she was directed to obtain a decree from a competent Court. Thereafter, Smt. Shanti Devi filed Civil Suit No. 6A/2007 seeking declaration as the legally wedded wife, which was compromised, giving her the benefit of dependent employment; however, SECL challenged the same in FAM No. 66/2013, and by order dated 20.01.2015, the compromise decree was modified to the extent that it would not bind SECL unless her legal status was declared by a competent Court. Subsequently, her fresh suit claiming legal status was dismissed on 04.04.2017. After that, petitioner No.2, Smt. Indrakunwar, applied on 17.04.2017 for compassionate appointment for her daughter (petitioner No.1), but it was rejected on 09.11.2017 on the ground that a married daughter is not entitled to such employment. The petitioners contend that a married daughter is eligible for compassionate appointment as 4 held in Smt. Asha Pandey v. CIL & Ors. (WPS No. 4994/2014) and that their application was within limitation as the period began from the date of the civil court’s judgment; hence, they seek quashing of the impugned orders dated 09.11.2017 and 17.04.2023 and a direction to SECL to consider their claim. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by the order impugned and has observed as under:- “10. In the present case, late Injor Say died on 14.08.2006. There was a dispute between his two wives, Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Indrakunwar with regard to their entitlement to a compassionate appointment. Initially, Smt. Shanti Devi's application was rejected by SECL on 11.11.2009. Thereafter, no fresh application was made by her. An application was subsequently moved by petitioner No.2 (Indrakunwar) on behalf of her daughter (petitioner No.1) on 17.04.2017, which was rejected on 09.11.2017, on the ground that a married daughter is not entitled to compassionate appointment, and again on 17.04.2023, on the ground of delay beyond the prescribed limitation. 5 11. As per Clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA-VI, the prescribed limitation period to seek compassionate appointment is five years from the date of the death of the employee. In this case, since late Injor Say died on 14.08.2006 and the application was moved only on 17.04.2017, there was a delay of nearly 11 years, which is far beyond the permissible limit. 12. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have survived all these years without employment assistance. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but is provided to mitigate the immediate financial hardship due to the sudden demise of the earning member. After such a long lapse of time, the very object of the scheme stands defeated. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).” 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submit that the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 949/2018 is illegal and contrary to law, as the learned Single Judge erroneously treated the case as 6 one of compassionate appointment, whereas it pertains to dependent employment under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which has the force of law under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as afÏrmed in Asha Pandey v. Coal India & Ors. WPS No.4994/14 It is argued that compassionate appointment is a matter of discretion or sympathy, but dependent employment under NCWA is a legal right flowing from a binding settlement. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge wrongly held that Clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA provides a limitation of five years, whereas no such limitation exists, and the claim cannot be rejected on that ground. Counsel also submits that though the earlier NCWA excluded married daughters from the definition of dependents, the said exclusion was struck down in Asha Pandey (supra), wherein it was held that a married daughter is equally entitled to dependent employment. Hence, the appellants seek setting aside of the impugned order. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions and would submit that the application moved by Smt. Shanti Devi for the grant of dependent employment was rejected by SECL authorities vide memo dated 11.11.2009. He would further submit that thereafter, a suit was 7 filed by Smt. Shanti Devi against SECL and petitioner No.2, which was settled between them. He would also submit that even after obtaining a decree in the said civil suit, Smt. Shanti Devi did not approach the authorities for compassionate employment, and her application was never reconsidered or rejected thereafter. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds no substance in the present writ appeal. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the claim for dependent employment was made after an inordinate delay of more than eleven years from the date of death of the employee, late Injor Say, who died on 14.08.2006. Under Clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA-VI, the limitation to seek employment on compassionate grounds is five years, and the appellants’ application dated 17.04.2017 was clearly barred by time. The plea that pendency of civil proceedings between two wives extended the limitation has no legal foundation, as the purpose of dependent employment is to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family, not a deferred benefit after more than a decade. Moreover, the appellants have managed to survive for all 8 these years without such employment, thereby defeating the very object of the scheme. The learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the facts and applied the law; hence, there is no error apparent or perversity warranting interference in appeal. 9. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 10. The writ appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice shoaib