1 CGHC010234992024 2026:CGHC:28475 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3928 of 2024 1 - Harihar Prasad S/o Late Manglu Aged About 36 Years R/o A/25, Ward No. 7, Khongapani, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfieds Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarters, Seepat Road, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarters, Seepat Road, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Area General Manager Hasdeo Area, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Post Office South Jhagrakhand Colliery, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Area Personal Manager Hasdeo Area, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Post Office South Jhagrakhand Colliery, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Colliery Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Haldibadi Colliery, Jhagrakhand Sub- Area, Hasdeo Area, Post Office- West Jhagrakhand Colliery, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Deputy Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Haldibadi Colliery, Jhagrakhand Sub- Area, Hasdeo Area, Post Office- West AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.07.13 18:27:25 +0530 2 Jhagrakhand Colliery, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 09/07/2026 1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 19/02/2024 (Annexure P-1) and 07/03/2024 (Annexure P-2) issued by the respondent no.4 and 6 respectively. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to grant employment to the petitioner being dependant of his father as per the Social Security Scheme as envisaged under the National Coal Wage Agreement. 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Company to issue appointment order in favor of the petitioner as per the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement without insisting for determination of age by the Age Determination Committee. 10.5 The Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the respondent company to pay compensation to the petitioner and take disciplinary action against the officials for 3 unnecessarily denying and delaying the petitioner's valuable right. 10.6 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 2. (A) Facts of the case are that the petitioner's father, Late Manglu, was an employee of the respondent Company and was working as Driller at Haldibadi Colliery at Hasdeo Area. He continued in service till his untimely death on 28/09/2022. During his service period, he had submitted his service particulars, wherein the name of the petitioner was duly recorded by the respondent. After the death of his father, the mother of the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent authorities seeking consideration of the case of the petitioner herein for grant of dependant employment under the provision of Social Security Scheme as envisaged under the National Coal Wages Agreement. When no action was taken, the petitioner’s mother made a specific application in favour of the petitioner categorically stated that the petitioner is the dependant of Late Manglu and any claim made by the sister of the petitioner, who is already married, may not be considered. Along with the application, petitioner's Aadhar Card, Pan Card, Marksheets were also submitted wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 17/03/1988. (B) On 09.05.2023, the respondent authorities issued an order directing the petitioner to explain the discrepancy between the petitioner's date of birth recorded in the school certificate (17.03.1988) and the service excerpt, wherein the date of birth was reflected as 01.04.1987. Pursuant 4 thereto, the petitioner approached the concerned authorities, who verified the school records. Thereafter, the office of the District Education Officer, by its report dated 19.01.2024, categorically confirmed that the petitioner's correct date of birth is 17.03.1988. The said report was supported by the mark sheet and admission register, duly countersigned by the competent authority. Despite receiving the verification report and all supporting records confirming the petitioner's date of birth, respondent No. 4, issued the impugned order alleging a discrepancy between the service excerpt of the petitioner's father and the school records. On that basis, the respondent proposed to refer the matter to the Age Determination Committee and directed the petitioner to submit an application form and consent affidavit, which action is arbitrary, illegal, and wholly unwarranted. Hence, this petition. 3. (I) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned action is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the records available with the respondent authorities themselves. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner submitted the matriculation certificate in support of his contention that his date of birth is 17/03/1988. He would submit that Clause (A)(i) of the Implementation Instruction No.76, which provides the procedure for determination/verification of age of employees, states that in case, the appointee who have passed the matriculation examination, the date of birth mentioned in the same shall be treated as the correct date of birth. Thus, there was no occasion for referring the petitioner to the ADC for determination of his age. Learned counsel further submits that the order impugned is illegal and contrary 5 to the Clause 9.3.0, 9.4.0. and 9.5.0 of the NCWA deals with the provision for employment/payment of monthly monetary compensation to dependant and as as such, the petitioner is eligible for getting appointment. The respondents are acting in an illegal and arbitrary manner and on account of said inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner and his family members are suffering whopping financial crisis in their day to day life. (II) Learned counsel further submits that the provisions relating to dependant employment under the NCWA constitute a beneficial scheme intended to provide social security to the family of an employee who dies in harness. Such beneficial provisions cannot be defeated by adopting a hyper-technical approach, particularly when the eligibility of the petitioner as a dependant was otherwise not disputed. (III) Learned counsel submits that the action of the respondent authorities in withholding the petitioner's compassionate appointment is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the NCWA-VI, NCWA-XI, and I.I. No.76. None of these provisions authorizes the respondents to disregard statutory documents relating to the petitioner's date of birth or to give overriding effect to the opinion of the Medical Board/Age Determination Committee. The scheme for compassionate appointment under the NCWA is a beneficial social security measure and cannot be defeated on such untenable grounds. The petitioner has fulfilled all eligibility criteria, and despite due verification of the date of birth, the respondents have unjustifiably delayed and denied the benefit, 6 while extending similar appointments in other cases, thereby causing serious prejudice and irreparable loss to the petitioner. (IV) It is further submitted that Date of birth as determined shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. According to learned counsel, the respondent authorities have selectively decided to refer the matter of the petitioner to the ADC while ignoring their own records which supported the claim of the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Dubey v. Central Coalfields Limited & Ors, (Civil Appeal Nos. 908 of 2025 decided on 21/01/2025) and the decision of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the matter of Lilwa Bhiyan v. Central Coalfields Limited & Others, (LPA No. 687/2019 decided on 10/02/2021), which was travelled upto the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) diary No. 31747/2022m (M/s Central Coalfields Limited & Others v Lilwa Bhiyan) and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 21.11.2022. (IV) Learned counsel also places reliance upon the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by Coal India Limited (CIL) dated 28.08.2023, wherein it has been provided that the age of the dependant for the purpose of determining eligibility is to be reckoned as on the date of death of the ex-employee. 4. (a) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the writ petition and submits that the impugned 7 order has been passed after due consideration of the relevant records and in accordance with the provisions governing dependant employment under the NCWA. It is submitted that the service conditions of the employees of the respondent Company are governed by the provisions of the said agreement. At the relevant point of time, NCWA-X was in force and the provisions contained in Clauses 9.3.0, 9.4.0 and 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI relating to dependant employment continued to operate. (b) Learned counsel submits that upon scrutiny of the application submitted by Smt. Punni Bai and the service records of the deceased employee, Late Manglu, it was found that the petitioner's age was recorded in the service excerpt as one year as on 01.04.1987, whereas the school records produced by the petitioner reflected his date of birth as 17.03.1988. In view of this discrepancy, the petitioner was called upon to furnish an explanation vide letter dated 09.05.2023. Since the discrepancy persisted, the respondents, in accordance with the prevailing practice and norms of SECL, issued letter dated 19.02.2024 proposing to refer the matter to the Age Determination Committee (ADC) for determination of the petitioner's age. Learned counsel further submits that vide letter dated 07.03.2024, the Deputy Manager (Personnel), Haldibadi Colliery, directed the petitioner to submit an application along with an affidavit for placing his case before the Age Determination Committee (ADC). (c) Learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot claim dependant employment as a matter of right. Compassionate 8 appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is intended only to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of an employee who dies in harness. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the respondent authorities have acted within the framework of the applicable rules and regulations, and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the material available on record. 6. The undisputed facts, which emerge from the record, are that the petitioner's father was an employee of the respondent Company He expired while in service. After his death, the petitioner submitted an application seeking consideration of his claim for grant of dependant employment under the provisions of the NCWA. It is not in dispute that the name of the petitioner was reflected in the service records of the deceased employee as her dependant. The petitioner relied upon the matriculation certificate to establish his age and eligibility. 7. The principal issue which falls for consideration is - “Whether the respondents were justified in referring the case of the petitioner to the Age Determination Committee for determination of his age, in respect of grant of dependant employment in lieu of death of his father, ignoring the matriculation certificate relied upon by the petitioner and the provisions of the NCWA and I.I.No.76 ? 9 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Dubey (supra) has considered the issue relating to determination of age of a dependant for the purpose of employment wherein it has observed thus at para 7, 9 & 10 : “7. After having considered the submissions and after perusing the documents, we are constrained to observe that the method adopted by the first respondent for determination of the age of the appellant, which is stated to be uniformly followed, is completely erroneous. An attempt should be made to determine the age of a candidate on the basis of authentic documents, such as birth certificate, school leaving certificate, matriculation certificate, etc. showing the date of birth. xxx xxx xxx 9. A Medical Board by using scientific methods can never make an accurate estimation of the age of a human being. estimate which can never be accurate. It is always an estimate which can never be accurate. 10. We have perused the certificate The Medical Board In the present case, the relevant date for deciding the age of the appellant is 31 July, 2013. of the Medical Board dated 10th December, 2014. It is not necessary to has recorded that the recommendation is based on physical and radiological examination of the appellant. record detailed reasons to hold that it is unsafe to make an accurate estimation of the age on the basis of physical examination or radiological examination or ossification test. have their own limitations. These methods In fact, the opinion of the Medical Board records that the age of the 10 appellant as on 31st December, 2014 was in between 35-40 years. Going by the said opinion, in July 2013, it is quite possible that the age of the appellant was less than 35 years.” 9. In the matter of Lilwa Bhuiyan (supra), the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi held thus at paras 14 to 15 : “14. We have already referred hereinabove about the principle to be followed in a case of beneficial legislation which is to be interpreted liberally so as to give it a wider meaning than a restrictive meaning which would indicate the very object of the Rule and admittedly the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a beneficial legislation and as such, the provisions contained therein may be construed taking the dominant purpose of the statute, intention of the legislature and underlying policy. We have also referred hereinabove that the NCWA is by way of providing social security measures by entering into an agreement with the Union under the provision of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same having the statutory fervor, the object underlying therein is to be considered. The foremost object of the said agreement is to act by way of providing social security measures to the employees and its dependant for which various provisions have been made to provide appointment in case of death of the bread earner as under Clause 9.3.0 and 9.5.0 of the said agreement and, therefore, when the underlying object of the said agreement is to provide social security measures to the employees and their dependants, the same is to be treated by the respondent authorities in a way so that the object and intent of the agreement be achieved. 11 The respondent CCL, however, failed to produce any decision of the authority, in case appointment on compassionate ground, to take the midpoint of the age assessed by the Medical Board as has been done in the instant case, rather the document dated 07.07.1992 has been produced to assess the age of an employee by taking the midpoint of the age as has been assessed by the Medical Board but since it is not a case of an employee rather the case of a candidate who is seeking appointment on compassionate ground and, therefore, the said circular will not be applicable in the case of the writ petitioner and in that view of the matter, when the respondent authorities have asked the writ petitioner to go for the medical examination wherein the age of the writ petitioner has been assessed in between 35 to 40 years and taking the midpoint the age of the writ petitioner has been assessed as 37% years of age, cannot be said to be an action to achieve the object and intent of the NCWA to provide social security measures to the dependant of the deceased employee, rather the approach of the respondent authorities ought to have been to consider the age of the writ petitioner by taking its lower point so that the object and intent of NCWA be achieved. 15. It requires to refer herein about the order passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.117 of 2010 dated 01.12.2010 which has been brought on record wherein also the issue fell for consideration about judging the age of appellant on medical opinion and therein it has been observed that if the petitioner's claim that her age is 43 years and the respondents considered that as per the medical evidence her age is 45 years then there always possibility of errors of two years (plus)/(minus) and in that 12 view of the matter the claim of the petitioner's mother could not have been denied on compassionate ground. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant that in pursuance to the order passed in L.P.A. No. 117 of 2010 [Md. Rahim v. Project Officer, Kuju Colliery), the appellant namely Md. Rahim has already been provided with the appointment which fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent CCL. Further, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jagdish v. Central Coalfields Limited & Others in W.P.(S) No. 3339 of 2016 wherein also the dispute about the age has been set at rest by the opinion of the Medical Board after assessment of the age of the writ petitioner in that writ petition which has been questioned by the writ petitioner on the ground that when the age of the writ petitioner is available in other records what is the necessity to go for the Medical Board and in that view of the matter the writ petition was allowed with a direction to appoint the writ petitioner of the said writ petition on compassionate ground. XXX XXX XXX XXX 10. It is noteworthy to mention here that the aforesaid decision of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi travelled upto the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) diary No. 31747/2022 (M/s Central Coalfields Limited & Others v Lilwa Bhiyan) and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 21.11.2022. 11. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the respondent authorities have not disputed the 13 genuineness of the documents relied upon by the petitioner. Referring the case of the petitioner to the A.D.C., for determination of his age, is not sustainable because in the matriculation certificate the date of birth of the petitioner has categorically been recorded as 17.3.1988. 12. Apart from that clause 9.3.0 of the NCWA-VI which provides for provision of Employment to Dependants and clause (A)(i) of the I.I,No. 76, which speaks about “Matriculate”, read thus : Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA-VI “9.3.0 Provision of Employment to Dependants 9.3.1 Employment would be provided to one dependant of workers who are disabled permanently and also those who die while in service. The provision will be implemented as follows. 9.3.2 Employment to one dependant of the worker who dies while in service In so far as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0. 9.3.3 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 deceased and almost wholly dependant on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependant of the deceased. 9.3.4 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 14 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. Clause (A) (i) of I.I.No.76 “Matriculates : In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examinations, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances.” 13. A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that in case of Matriculates, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances. Thus, the provision does not contemplate determination of age solely on the basis of radiological assessment while ignoring the documentary evidence available on record. 14. There is no allegation that the matriculation certificate submitted by the petitioner is forged or fabricated. The respondent authorities have not disputed the genuineness of the documents relied upon by the petitioner. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the reference made to the ADC to determine the age of the petitioner is not sustainable unless and until the genuineness or correctness of such documents is specifically questioned and established. 15. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned orders dated 19/02/2024 Annexure P-1 and 07/03/2024 15 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.4 and 6 respectively are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to take suitable decision with regard to grant of dependant employment to the petitioner in the light of the observations and findings recorded in the preceding paras of this order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. As a sequel, the Writ Petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep