1 2026:CGHC:26204-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 519 of 2026 Ashwani Mahant S/o Late Nain Das Aged About 37 Years R/o Gevra Basti P.S. Kusmunda Tahsil Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - The Union of India Through The Chairman-Cum- Managing Director (Personal/ Administration/ Industrial Relations), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Post Box No. 60 Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The General Manager (Excavation) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Project, Gevra, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Chief Personnel Officer, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Project, Gevra, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. M. Asha, Advocate For Respondent-Union of India : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 29.06.2026 1. Heard Ms. M. Asha, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.06.30 10:17:24 +0530 2 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 258 of 2022 (Ashwani Mahant v. Union of India and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge has been dismissed. By filing the present writ appeal, the appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “(a) admit the present Writ Appeal; (b) call for the records of WPS No. 258 of 2022 and the records pertaining to the Appellant's dependent-employment claim; (c) set aside the impugned order dated 20.03.2026 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in WPS No. 258 of 2022; (d) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to grant dependent / compassionate employment to the Appellant with all consequential service and monetary benefits; (e) pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The facts, in brief, are that the father of the appellant/writ petitioner, namely Late Nain Das, was working as a Dumper Operator under the respondent-SECL. He went missing on 25.07.2003 and remained untraceable thereafter. Since he could 3 not be traced for a considerable period, a civil suit was instituted seeking a declaration of his civil death. The said suit came to be decreed by the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Katghora, District Korba, vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.2013, declaring Late Nain Das to be civilly dead. Consequent thereto, a death certificate was also issued on the same date. 4. The appellant/writ petitioner had submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment on 29.01.2009. As no decision was taken thereon, the appellant/writ petitioner approached this Court by filing WPS No.845 of 2017, which was disposed of by order dated 12.07.2019 directing the respondent-authorities to take a decision on the claim within a period of three months. Pursuant to the said direction, the respondent-SECL considered the claim but rejected the same vide order dated 18.10.2019 on the ground that appointment on compassionate grounds based on civil death had been deleted from the prevailing policy. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/writ petitioner preferred WPS No.258 of 2022, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.03.2026. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 20.03.2026 passed in WPS No.258 of 2022, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed the instant writ appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge has committed a manifest error in 4 dismissing the writ petition by proceeding on a premise wholly alien to the impugned order dated 18.10.2019. It is contended that the respondent-SECL never rejected the claim on the ground that compassionate appointment in cases of civil death stood excluded from the policy. Rather, the sole basis of rejection was that the order of removal from service dated 25.09.2006 preceded the decree declaring civil death dated 17.12.2013 and, therefore, the case was not covered under the concept of "death-in-harness" under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA). Learned counsel submits that the very foundation of the rejection order is legally unsustainable inasmuch as the Civil Court, while decreeing the suit on 17.12.2013, specifically recorded that the appellant's father had been missing since the year 2004. The decree merely declared the civil death on 17.12.2013, whereas the legal presumption of death relates back to the period after the employee remained unheard of for the statutory period. The said decree has attained finality, having never been challenged by the respondents, and is binding upon them. Consequently, the order of removal dated 25.09.2006, passed against a person who in the eye of law was already deemed to have suffered civil death, cannot be relied upon to deny the benefit of compassionate appointment. It is thus submitted that the appellant's case squarely falls within the ambit of "death-in-harness" under the NCWA and the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate this determinative aspect. 5 8. Learned counsel further submits that, even otherwise, the order of removal dated 25.09.2006 is ex facie void and non est in law. It is argued that the respondents were fully aware that the appellant's father was suffering from serious mental illness, had been treated in the SECL Hospital and was thereafter referred by the employer itself to the Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi, for specialized psychiatric treatment. Despite such admitted knowledge, a departmental proceeding alleging unauthorized absence was initiated and concluded ex parte against a missing and mentally ill employee without serving notice upon his family or affording any meaningful opportunity of hearing, in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submits that the respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own illegal action to defeat the appellant's contractual entitlement under the NCWA. It is lastly contended that the appellant and his family have diligently pursued their claim at every stage by lodging the missing report, obtaining the decree of civil death, submitting applications and approaching this Court without any delay, and, therefore, the humanitarian object underlying compassionate appointment cannot be frustrated by adopting a hyper-technical approach. It is, therefore, prayed that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside and the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment be allowed. 6 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India supports the impugned judgment and submits that the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected in accordance with the applicable policy and the NCWA. It is contended that no illegality has been committed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present writ appeal. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 10. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents placed on record and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 11. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “6. It is true that father of the petitioner went missing and a decree of civil death was granted by the competent Civil Court. The petitioner approached the SECL authorities on 29.01.2009. The SECL authorities decided the claim of the petitioner pursuant to order passed in WPS No.845 of 2017 dated 12.07.2019. It is stated in the order impugned that the claim for dependent employment cannot be considered based on civil death of a SECL employee as said criteria has been removed from Policy for dependent employment. A policy decision has been taken 7 by the SECL authorities and the petitioner has not challenged the said policy, therefore, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.” 12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error, much less any error warranting interference in exercise of intra-Court appellate jurisdiction. The claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment has been considered by the competent authority and rejected by a reasoned order. Compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment nor can it be claimed as a matter of right. Such appointment is governed entirely by the policy prevailing on the date of consideration of the claim and the employer is bound to act in accordance with the governing scheme. 13. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant with regard to the date of civil death, validity of the order of removal dated 25.09.2006, the effect of the decree passed by the Civil Court and the applicability of the provisions of the National Coal Wage Agreement are all issues which do not persuade us to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Single Judge. We find that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the respondent authorities had considered the appellant's claim in the light of the applicable policy governing compassionate appointment and, once the claim was found to be outside the purview of the 8 prevailing scheme, no direction for grant of compassionate appointment could have been issued in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 14. We are also of the considered opinion that no case of arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of any statutory or constitutional provision has been made out so as to warrant interference with either the order rejecting the appellant's claim or the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. The scope of interference in an intra-Court appeal against an order passed in exercise of writ jurisdiction is limited, and unless the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are shown to be perverse or suffering from patent illegality, the appellate Court would not be justified in substituting its own view. No such infirmity has been demonstrated before us. 15. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ appeal, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order dated 20.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.258 of 2022 is affirmed. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu