1 / 5 2026:CGHC:6892 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2541 of 2025 • Smt. Asha Pandey W/o Anil Pandey Aged About 30 Years Working As General Mazdoor Category - I, Jhiriya Mines Rajnagar, District Anuppur (M.P.) ... Petitioner versus 1. Coal India Ltd. Through Its Chairman, Present Address Rajarhat, Kolkata (West Bengal). 2. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Chairman - Cum - Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3. Mine Manager Jhiriya U.G. Mines South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdev Area, Ramnagar Sub Region, Anuppur (M.P.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. and Mr. Ritesh Giri, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 06/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the representation and to grant appointment and service benefit ie., seniority and monetary benefit within 45 days from 15.03.2016 as per order passed in WPS No. 4994/2015 in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that father of petitioner Late Shri Rampravesh Sharma while working as Senior Clerk with the respondent- PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 5 department died in harness on 08.02.2014. Petitioner being daughter of deceased employee submitted an application fro grant of dependent employment taking support of the clauses mentioned in National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA). Application submitted by petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that married daughter is not entitled for grant of dependent employment. Petitioner challenged the order of rejection of her application by way of filing writ petition bearing WPS No. 4994/2015 which came to be allowed in part vide order dated 15.03.2016 but the respondent-department instead of compliance with that order has filed writ appeal and thereafter SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The writ appeal filed by respondent- department as also the SLP came to be dismissed. Respondents-authorities thereafter had given dependent employment to the petitioner vide order dated 03.03.2022. Respondents-authorities have committed error in not granting service benefit from the date of expiry of the period as mentioned in the order passed in writ petition ie., after 45 days of passing of order dated 15.03.2016. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the respondents would oppose the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submits that in NCWA prior to passing of order in writ petition filed by petitioner, married daughters were not included as family member to consider their claim for grant of dependent employment. Right of consideration of petitioner was crystallized only after passing of order in writ petition dated 15.03.2016. Respondents have challenged the correctness of the order passed in writ petition filed by petitioner bearing WPS No. 4994/2015 dated 15.03.2016 in a writ appeal. When the writ appeal filed by the institution/ respondents herein, bearing No. WA No. 246 of 2016 came up for hearing on 23.01.2017, interim order of stay of impugned order was passed. Initially the writ appeal filed by respondents was allowed vide order dated 06.10.2018 and the order dated 01.08.2016, impugned order therein was set aside. Copy of order is placed on record as 3 / 5 Annexure P-2. Petitioner herein thereafter filed a review application which was allowed and the order dated 06.10.2018 was recalled. He also contended that initially in the writ appeal filed by respondents, order passed in writ petition bearing WPS No. 4994/2015 was stayed vide order dated 23.01.2017. After hearing both the sides, Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by answering respondents vide order dated 03.09.2019 and thereafter SLP was filed which came came to be dismissed on 31.01.2020. Respondents-authorities have taken recourse to the law and has availed the right of appeal against the order passed in writ petition and further SLP was also filed. It is not a case that the respondents-authorities only with an intent to causing delay in considering the claim of petitioner has filed aforesaid proceedings but respondents-authorities being the employee of the company after taking opinion from the competent authorities have filed appeal and therefore it cannot be said that there is delay on the part of respondents in complying with the order passed in writ petition. It is contention of learned senior counsel that due to sudden outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic from March 2020, offices were not properly functioning for certain period due to directives issued by the Central Government and the competent authorities time to time. After dismissal of the SLP, following due process of law, petitioner was given compassionate appointment thereafter without any further delay. On the date of passing of order in WPS No. 4994/2015, petitioner had not accrued any right of appointment as in the order passed in writ petition it only talks of consideration of candidature/ application of petitioner for her appointment under the scheme of the dependent employment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with writ petition. 5. The relief which is claimed for by petitioner is that respondents-authorities be directed to grant appointment and service benefit ie., seniority and monetary 4 / 5 benefit to petitioner after 45 days from the date of passing of order in WPS No. 4994/2015 dated 15.03.2016. The order passed in writ petition in favour of petitioner is passed in WPS No. 4994/2015 after analyzing the pleadings and documents placed before it. While allowing the writ petition, following observation has been made: “29. …As a consequence, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for dependent employment afresh in accordance with law keeping in view that her father died way back on 08.02.2014 and her application for dependent employment was rejected on 15.10.2015, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.” 6. Under the Chhattisgarh High Court Rules, 2007, the order passed in writ petition by a Single Judge is appealable in a writ appeal and therefore respondents-authorities have taken decision to avail the remedy and mechanism of appeal against the order passed in writ petition. Respondents- authorities have availed the remedy available to them under law of filing an appeal. The Division Bench of this Court, upon considering the writ appeal initially had passed an order granting interim relief on 23.01.2017. The operative portion of the order dated 23.01.2017 is as follows: “Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and the dispute involved, it is made clear that the cases shall be disposed of on the next date. Till further orders, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.” 7. The order was passed considering bunch of three writ appeals including one filed by petitioner herein in WA No. 246/2016, another by the respondent- S.E.C.L. It is also a case that initially writ appeal filed by respondent- department came to be allowed vide order dated 06.10.2018 and thereafter in review application filed by petitioner, order dated 06.10.2018 was recalled and writ appeal filed by petitioner was again heard finally. Writ appeal came 5 / 5 to be dismissed vide order dated 03.09.2019 and thereafter respondents have preferred SLP(C) No. 238/2020, which came to be dismissed on 31.01.2020. 8. It is also known to the citizens of India that on account of outbreak of Covid- 19 pandemic, Central Government issued directives for closing of the institutions for some period and thereafter to work with the minimum man power which came in effect from the month of March 2020 and time to time directives were issued in this regard. The situation became normalize only from January 2022. Order of compassionate appointment was issued on 03.03.2022. 9. Apart from the aforementioned unfortunate period of Covid-19, the order passed in writ petition in favour of petitioner is only of consideration of candidature of petitioner for grant of dependent employment. Till order of appointment is issued in favour of petitioner on 03.03.2022, petitioner was not employed with the respondent-department. Right of petitioner was crystallized finally only when writ appeal came to be dismissed as also the SLP before the Supreme Court filed by respondents. It is also not to be overlooked that in writ appeal filed by respondent-department Division Bench of this Court granted interim relief of stay in favour of employer. Petitioner will be entitled for all the service benefits flowing from the date of her appointment order ie., from 03.03.2022 and therefore the relief sought for in this writ petition is misconceived. 10. For the foregoing discussion and reasons, writ petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. 11. No order as to cost. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE