1 CGHC010194342020 2026:CGHC:32062 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No.3569 of 2020 1 - Smt. Prabha D/o Late Shri Gudriram Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Quarter No.M-151, Post Bijuri, District Anuppur (M.P.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Coal India Limited Through Its Chairman 10 Netaji Subhash Road Calcutta (West Bengal) 2 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 27/07/2026 1. The petitioner is a married daughter of the deceased SECL servant, whose application for dependent employment has been rejected by the SECL on the ground of her being married as well as over age i.e. 39 years of age. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 policy is against the constitutional mandate and is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the married daughter cannot be denied dependent employment only on the ground that she is married, as has been held by this Court in Writ Appeal No.246/2016 vide judgment dated 03.09.2019 in between Coal India Ltd and others vs Smt. Asha Pandey. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the married daughter can be considered for dependent employment but the petitioner has exceeded the age limit for consideration for dependent employment as per relevant provisions of NCWA, which is 35 years of age, but the petitioner is presently aged about 39 years, as such she cannot be provided dependent employment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. Insofar as the first ground for rejection of the application of the petitioner of her being married is concerned, the same is unsustainable in view of the decision of this Court in the matter of Smt. Asha Pandey (supra), but insofar as the second ground of her being over age is concerned, paras 9.3.4 & 9.5.0 of the NCWA are referred here:- “9.3.4 The dependents 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. 3 9.5.0 Employment/Monetary dependent 2 Provision compensation of to female employment/monetary compensation to female dependents of workmen who die while in service and who are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated as under:- (i) In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependent would have the option to either acceptthe monetary compensation of Rs. 4,000/ per month or employment irrespective of her age (ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to cause other than mine accident and medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0., if the female dependent is below the age of 45 years she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 3,000/- per month or employment. In case the female dependent is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment. (iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons of medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependent of the concerned worker is 12 years and above in age, he will be kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skills and qualifications when he attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependent on live roster, the female dependent will be paid monetary compensation as per rates at para (i) & (ii) above. This will be effective from 01.01.2000. (iv) Monetary compensation wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependent attains the age of 60 years. (v) The existing rate of monetary compensation will continue. The matter will be further discussed in the Standardization Committee and finalized.” 6. The above provision clearly shows that the female dependent should not be more than 35 years of age on the date of consideration, but in the case in hand, the petitioner was aged 4 about 39 years as such she was much more than 35 years of age on the date of consideration of her application. Thus, the application of the petitioner for grant of dependent employment has rightly been rejected by the respondents. In this regard, Division Bench judgment rendered in the matter of Ramkeli vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others, passed in WA No.479/2020 vide judgment dated 25.03.2021 may be noticed herein profitably. It was held in para 12 as under:- “12. From reading of Clause 9.3.4, which is a Clause fixing the maximum age for consideration of grant of dependent employment, age of 45 years has been mentioned for female spouse and not for other female dependents. For other female dependents like the appellant, who is a married daughter, maximum age for consideration of grant of dependent employment shall be 35 years as mentioned in Clause 9.3.4. This Court cannot pass any order contrary to the Clauses of NCWA-VI, which is available in the writ petition as Annexure P/4, even if such a defence is not taken by respondents in their reply.” 7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Nirala