1 2025:CGHC:53576 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2117 of 2021 • Rajeshwar Sahu, S/o Late Ram Charit, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Dabripara, Post Gangauti, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. South Eastern Coal Field Ltd., Through The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The General Manager S.E.C.L, Jarhi, Bhatgaon Area, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Sub-Area Manager, Bhatgaon Area, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate & Mr. Adarsh Rajput, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 03/11/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash/set-aside the letter dated 25.09.2019 (Annexure-P/1) and directing the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner for extending the compassionate appointment. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus or of like nature directing the respondents to consider the public documents filed by the petitioner. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to call for the records pertains to the case of petitioner including the service record of DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 the deceased employee Late Ram Charit the father of the petitioner. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents for conduct the medical examination pertains to radiology test of the petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner namely Ram Charit was working with the respondents as Tyndel Category 6 at Bhatgaon ½ Area, who died in harness on 27.01.2019. Petitioner being son of the deceased employee made an application for grant of dependent employment in lieu of death of his father to the respondents 17.12.2019 vide Annexure-P/3. She further submits that along with applications he has appended the copy of Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Medical Certificate etc. to ascertain his age. She further submitted that vide impugned order Annexure-P/1, the application of the petitioner was rejected holding that his date of birth is 01.12.1976 (43 years) and the same was communicated to his mother vide letter dated 25.09.2019 (Annexure-P/1). The same is being assailed before this Court. She further submits that the respondent authorities arrived at a conclusion that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.12.1976 on the basis of service record of his father maintained by the respondent authorities. She further submits that there is no documentary evidence available with the respondents to ascertain the age of the petitioner and only on the basis of declaration made by his father, the conclusion with regard to the age of the petitioner has been arrived at by the respondent authorities. She submits that the date of birth of the petitioner is 21.11.1985 and when petitioner made an application for grant of dependent appointment, he was less than 35 years and was entitled to grant of dependent employment in light of Clause 9.3.4 of the agreement, 10th wages agreement of National Coal Wage Agreement SECL (for short ‘NCWA’) dated 3 10.10.2017. Therefore, the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) may be set aside and the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for grant of dependent employment. 3. Per contra learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposing the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and relying upon the same clause of NCWA and submits that in order to obtain dependent employment, the applicant ought to have been less than 35 years of age at the time of filing of an application. He further submits that father of the petitioner has made declaration in the service record indicating the date of the petitioner to 01.12.1976, therefore, at the time when the application filed for dependent employment by the petitioner, he was aged about 43 years of age and was not entitled to get the dependent employment in light of the aforesaid clause of NCWA. He further submits that PAN Card, Aadhar Card, Medical Certificate etc. submitted along with the application after the death of the deceased employee and the middle school certificate was not in the regular course, rather it was only a literacy certificate issued under the education follower campaign run by the government and cannot be the basis to ascertain the age and date of birth of the petitioner. As the credible information was recorded in the service record of the deceased father of the petitioner, the rejection of the application of the petitioner is based on good valid ground and does call for any interference of this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 5. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner was an employee of the respondent and it is also not in dispute that he died in harness during the course of employment in the year 2019. The dispute which is emerging in the writ petition is with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner to be taken as 01.12.1976 as recorded in the service record of the father of the petitioner maintained by the respondents or 21.11.1985 as agitated and presented by 4 the petitioner by filing certain documents including PAN Card, Aadhar Card, and the 5th Class school certificate. 6. The NCWA agreement clause 9.3.4 provides that any person who has dependency to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable age for employment is not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years. If the date of birth of the petitioner is taken as 01.12.1976, naturally he would be more than 35 years on the date of filing of an application for grant of compassionate appointment and if this Court finds that his date of birth is 21.11.1985, he would naturally be less than 35 years and would be entitled for dependent employment in lieu of clause 9.3.4 of the NCWA. 7. The thrust of the argument of Mr. Bajpai is that the entry made in the service record of the petitioner’s father should be treated as sacro sant, as it has been made as per the declaration of the petitioner’s father. However, apart from the entry made in the service record, there is nothing on record to suggest that on what basis the father of the petitioner made such entry. The date of birth of the father of the petitioner as per service record appears to be is 16.07.1959 and when petitioner was born according to the service record i.e., on 01.12.1976, the petitioner’s father would be around 17 years of age. If this Court consider the date of birth of the petitioner is 21.11.1985, then the age of the father of the petitioner would come around 26 years of age. The possibility of petitioner being born on 21.11.1985 appears to be more realistic than his date of birth being 01.12.1976. Apart from this, no other documents are available, the petitioner had the opportunity to determine the age of the petitioner by conducting the Ossification Test to ascertain the actual age of the petitioner. 8. In the case in hand, does not appear that such an exercise was conducted by respondents. Ofcourse, only the Class 5th marksheet is appended indicating the date of birth of the petitioner, but corroborative evidence like 5 PAN Card, Aadhar Card are also appended to show the date of birth of the petitioner to be 21.11.1985. Thus, in light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for dependent employment holding him to be aged about 43 years treating his date of birth to be 01.12.1976 appears to be without any proper appreciation of facts available on record is liable to be and is hereby set aside. 9. In view of above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of directing respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for granting dependent employment in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt/submission of copy of this order. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge