1 2026:CGHC:26959 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1939 of 2024 1 - Sumar Sai S/o Late Gohandul, Aged About 57 Years Presently Working As Coal Dresser, Kurasia Colliery, Chirimiri, P.S. Chirimiri, District Manendragarh-Chirimiri-Bharatpur (Cg) 2 - Shiv Prasad S/o Sumar Sai, Aged About 34 Years R/o R-1 Road, Baganachcha Dafai, Haldibadi, Chirimiri, P.S. Chirimiri, District Manendragarh-Chirimiri-Bharatpur (Cg) 3 - Shakuntala D/o Sumar Sai, Aged About 33 Years R/o R-1 Road, Baganachcha Dafai, Haldibadi, Chirimiri, P.S. Chirimiri, District Manendragarh-Chirimiri-Bharatpur (Cg) ... Petitioners versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Head Qtrs. Seepat Road, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur (Cg) 2 - Director (Personnel), South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Head Qtrs., Seepat Road, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur (Cg) 3 - Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfileds Limited, Chirmiri Area, P.S. Podi (West Chirimiri), Chirimiri, District Manendragarh-Chirimiri-Bharatpur (Cg) 4 - Sub-Area Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kurasia Colliery, Chirimiri, P.S. Chirimiri, District Manendragarh-Chirimiri- Bharatpur (Cg) ... Respondents AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.07.03 10:50:47 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 01/07/2026 1. By the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and quash the order dated 03.03.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.: 4 herein, thereby discarding the application for grant of dependent employment under the scheme of National Coal Wage Agreement. 10.2 Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner No.:1 for being declared as permanently disabled in view of the particulars facts of this case as explained above. 10.3 Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to consider the case of either of the petitioner Nos.: 2 or 3 for dependent employment under the scheme of Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA - VI, which is prevailing as on date. 10.4 Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.” 3 2. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner No.1 while working in the respondents/SECL as a Coal Dresser suffered severe paralytic attack on 08/10/2019, for which, he was treated in the Regional Hospital, Kurasia and thereafter at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur from 08/10/2019 to 08/11/2019. Despite the said fact, on 03/02/2020, the respondents issued a notice to the petitioner No.1 alleging unauthorized absence from service w.e.f. 09/10/2019. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner No.1 submitted his reply on 25/02/2020 and stated therein that he suffered with paralytic attack during the course of his duties in the underground mines of Kurasia Colliery and taking treatment at Apollo Hospital Bilaspur. The petitioner No.1 also stated that for the month of December 2019 and January 2020, he was sanctioned and granted half pay leave and from the said fact, it appears that the SECL was well aware about the illness of the petitioner No.1. Subsequently, the SECL granted special leave/extension of special leave for three months to the petitioner No.1. On account of half pay, the petitioner No.1 and his family members are suffering a lot. Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 moved an application before the respondents authorities for grant of employment to either petitioner Nos.2 or 3, who are his son and daughter, respectively under the provisions of Clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA which remains operational. 4 (b) According to the petitioners, when no action has been taken by the authorities, the petitioners preferred WPS No.7756/2023 which was disposed of by this Court on 03/10/2023 and directed the respondents No.2 and 4 therein to decide the pending representation of the petitioners at the earliest period. Thereafter, the respondents authorities vide order impugned dated 03/03/2024 denied the claim of the petitioner stating therein that until the submission of report by the sub-committee to whom the matter has been referred and till receipt of the report status, status quo will be maintained. Learned counsel further submits that the order impugned is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Clause 9.4.0. of the NCWA. The respondents are acting in an illegal and arbitrary manner and on account of said inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner No.1 and his family members are suffering whopping financial crisis in their day to day life. 3. (i) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the instant case comes under ambit of NCWA applicable w.e.f 01.07.2021. The main clause 9.4.0 of NCWA states that "On Clause 9.4.0, a Sub-Committee shall be constituted which shall submit its report to the Standardization Committee of JBCCI-XI. Till then status quo shall be maintained". Learned counsel submits that the provision clearly specifies that status quo is to be maintained as regards clause 9.4.0 is concerned. No employment has been extended during 5 the period of its applicability usually as such, the said status of not extending the benefit has been maintained. (ii) As regards submission of reports by the sub-committee to the Standardization Committee of JBCCI-XI, no such report has been communicated by CIL, till date. Any action in the instant case is feasible only after receipt of report of the committee. Learned counsel further submits that till date neither petitioner No.1i has been declared fit for duty nor unfit by any medical board constituted under 9.4.0. The special leave is extended as per existing provision of the company on application of petitioner No.1. According to him, the employees are not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever beyond the scope of the term of provisions prescribed under the NCWA. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 5. At this juncture, it would be apt to quote Clause 9.4.0. of the NCWA-VI “Employment to one dependant of a worker who is permanently disabled in his place: (i). The disablement of the worker concerned should arise from injury or disease, be of a permanent nature resulting into loss of employment and it should be so certified by the Coal Company concerned. (ii) In case of disablement arising out of general physical debility so certified by the Coal Company, the 6 employee concerned will be eligible for the benefit under this clause if he/she is upto the age of 58 years. The term 'general physical debility' would mean deficiency of a workman due to any disease or other health reason leading to his/her disablement to perform his/her duties regularly and/or efficiently. (iii) The dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in- law residing with the employee and almost wholly dependent on the earning of the employee may be considered. In so far as female dependants are concerned, their employment would be governed by the provisions of clause 9.5.0. (iv) The dependants to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as given in Clause 9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment.” 7 6. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid clause, it is evident that the worker concerned shall be eligible under this clause if the disablement arises from injury, disease, or general physical debility, is of a permanent nature resulting in loss of employment, and is so certified by the Coal Company concerned and in cases of disablement arising out of general physical debility, the employee shall be eligible for this benefit only if he/she is up to the age of 58 years, as certified by the Coal Company concerned. 7. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner No.1 is working in the SECL as a Coal Dresser and he suffered with severe paralytic attack since 08/10/2019. On account of his illness, he moved an application under Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA-VI and requested the SECL authorities to provide the employment either his son or daughter. 8. Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA-VI were continued under NCWA-VIII dated 24/01/2009, wherein it has been stipulated that Clauses 9.4.0 of NCWA-VI shall remain operative until a revised scheme is jointly framed in light of judgments of the Supreme Courts. Thus, the applicable NCWA were in force and governed the field. However, despite having requisite eligibility criteria, the case of the petitioners has not been considered in accordance with the provisions of the NCWA. 9. In Mohan Mahto Vs. M/s. Central Coal Field Ltd. and Ors (2007) 8 SCC 549, the Supreme Court held as under:- 8 “10. A settlement within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding on both the parties and continues to remain in force unless the same is altered, modified or substituted by another settlement. No period of limitation was provided in the settlement. We would assume that the respondent had jurisdiction to issue such circular prescribing a period of limitation for filing application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. But, such circular was not only required to be strictly complied with but also was required to be read keeping in view the settlement entered into by and between the parties. The expanding definition of workman as contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act would confer a right upon the appellant to obtain appointment compassionate ground, subject, of course, to compliance of the conditions precedent contained therein. 11. The right to obtain appointment on compassionate grounds emanates from the settlement. Settlement is defined in Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act to mean 'a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the 9 employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorized in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer'. 16. 16. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the case for grant of compassionate appointment of a minor was required to be considered in terms of Sub- clause (iii) of Clause 9.5.0 of the N.C.W.A.V. In. terms of the said provision, the name of the appellant was to be kept on a live roster. He was to remain on the live roster till he attained the age of 18 years. Respondents did not perform their duties cast on them thereunder. It took an unilateral stand that an application has been filed in the year 1999 in the prescribed form. For complying with the provisions of a settlement which is binding on the parties, bona fide or otherwise of the respondent must be judged from the fact as to whether it had discharged his duties thereunder or not. In this case, not only it failed and/ or neglected to do so, but as indicated hereinbefore it took an unholy stand that the elder brother of the appellant being 10 employed, he was not entitled to appointment on the compassionate ground. Thus, what really impelled the respondent in denying the benefit of compassionate appointment to the appellant is, therefore, open to guess. We expect a public sector undertaking which is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India not only to act fairly but also reasonably and bona fide. In this case, we are satisfied that the action of the respondent is neither fair nor reasonable nor bona fide. 17. We have indicated hereinbefore, that it is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether on the teeth of the provision of N.C.W.A.V., the respondent at all had any power to fix a time limit and thereby curtailing the right of the workman concerned. We would assume that even in such a matter, it had a right. But, even for the said purpose, keeping in view the fact that a beneficial provision is made under a settlement, the 'State' was expected to act reasonably” 10. In the matter of Smt. Subhadra Vs. Ministry of Coal, AIR 2018 SC 783, the Supreme Court has observed as under:- “The learned counsel for respondent no.2- Organisation has invited our attention to the 11 decision of this Court in Canara bank &anr. V. M.Mahesh Kumar, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 and submitted that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and there is a discretion available to the employer. We have no quarrel with the settled position, but the instant case is not a case of discretionary compassionate appointment governed by any statutory guidelines. It is governed by a scheme, as agreed to by the parties and which has become part of Bipartite Agreement. The terms of the agreement are very specific and give no room for any discretion.” 11. In the matter of Avinash Saloman Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Ors in WPS No.832/2012, this Court held as under:- “28. wherein it has been categorically held that the agreement entered into between the coal companies and the representatives of the employees in the form of the National Coal Wage Agreement constitutes a "settlement" within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and is binding under Section 18(3) thereof. Being a statutory settlement, it creates an enforceable right in favour of the dependant of a 12 deceased employee to be considered for employment strictly in terms of its provisions. The said legal position stands fortified by the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Mahto (supra), wherein it has been authoritatively held that the right to compassionate/dependant appointment, when flowing from a settlement, cannot be diluted by executive instructions and that a public sector undertaking, being "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, must act fairly, reasonably and bona fide.” 12.The distinction between a discretionary compassionate appointment under a statutory policy and dependant employment flowing from a binding bipartite settlement has been clearly reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Subhadra (supra), wherein it has been held that where the scheme forms part of a binding agreement, its terms leave no room for administrative discretion de hors the agreement. The legal position regarding the binding nature of precedents and the impermissibility of taking a view contrary to settled law has been elaborately considered in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2011 SC 312, emphasizing judicial discipline under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Further, the contention of the respondents 13 regarding prospective operation of judgments stands repelled in view of the recent pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanishk Sinha and Anr Vs. The State of West Bengal and another (SLP Criminal No.8609-8614 of 2024) vide order dated 27/02/2025, wherein it has been clarified that law declared by a Constitutional Court is ordinarily retrospective unless specifically directed otherwise. 13.In view of the above, the non-consideration of the claim of the petitioners is wholly misconceived and legally unsustainable. The petitioner No.1 sufferred with severe paralytic attack during the course of service, thereby giving rise to a right in favour of one eligible dependent to be considered for employment, Social Security Scheme contained in the NCWA. 14.The respondents, being "state" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are obligated to act fairly and in consonance with the binding settlement. The action of the respondents in denying dependent employment on an extraneous ground not contemplated under the NCWA is ex facie arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and affirmed by this Court. 15.In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, the impugned action of the respondents insofar as it relates to non-consideration of the petitioners claim for dependent employment vide order dated 14 03/03/2024 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioners’ application for grant of dependent employment strictly in accordance with the provisions of Clause 9.4.0. of the NCWA-VI, as applicable and pass necessary orders about the consideration of the case of the petitioners within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 16.The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. 17.There shall be no order as to cost(s). SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep