1 CGHC010261132021 2026:CGHC:35705 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5671 of 2021 Jyoti D/o Late Dal Pratap Aged About 21 Years W/o Shri Durgesh R/o Ward No. 03, Kalibasti, Bhalmudi, District Anuppur M. P. ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter Seepat Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter Seepat Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief General Manager Office Of Chief General Manager, Hasdeo South Eastern Coalfields Limited, South Jhagrakhand Colliery, Post South Jhagrakhand, District Koriay Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Area Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raj Nagar, Sub Area, Hasdeo Area, District Anuppur M. P. 5 - Deputy Manager (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raj Nagar, R. O. Sub Area, Hasdeo Area, District Anuppur M. P. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate along with Ms. Rakshita Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioners. 2 10.2. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant dependant employment to the petitioner. 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the respondent company to pay compensation to the petitioner for illegally and unnecessarily delaying and depriving the petitioner of his rights. 10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioners including the cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the mother of the petitioner, who was working with the respondents, died in harness on 31.12.2010. It is submitted that an application for dependent employment was moved by the petitioner on 10.10.2012, but same was rejected vide order dated 11.10.2012, as petitioner was minor at that point of time. It is further submitted after attaining the age of majority she again moved application for dependent employment on 29.07.2021, but same was also rejected vide order dated 25.09.2021 on the ground that the petitioner, being a married daughter, is not entitled to dependent employment according to NCWA-IX. It is further submitted that this issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench in the matter of Smt. Asha Pandey v. Coal India Ltd. & ors decided on 15.03.2016 in WPS 4994/2015, wherein it is held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from the list of dependents and cannot be denied grant of dependent employment. Against, order dated 15.03.2016, WA No.246 of 2016 & other connected matters were preferred but same were dismissed vide judgment dated 03.09.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner would lastly submit that on the date of death of the mother of the petitioner, the age of the petitioner was 8 years, and she approached the respondent authorities after attaining the age of 3 majority on 29.07.2021; thus, it is prayed that the petition may be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that on the date of demise of the mother of the petitioner, she was minor. He would further submit that the petitioner never approached the respondent authorities to put her name in the live roster. He would also submit that the petitioner after marriage, approached the respondent authorities on 29.07.2021, and the claim of the petitioner was a delayed claim. He would contend that prior to the said application, she got married, and according to NCWA-IX, a married daughter is not eligible to claim dependent employment. He would further contend that earlier claim of the petitioner with regard to dependent employment was rejected by the SECL authorities vide order dated 11.10.2012, and the said order has not been challenged; thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard. 5. The claim of the petitioner with regard to dependent employment was rejected by the SECL authorities on 11.10.2012 on the ground that at that point of time, the petitioner was aged about 13 years of age. The subsequent rejection order was passed on one of the conditions mentioned in NCWA-IX, which states that a married daughter would not be eligible to claim dependent employment. 6. In the year 2012, the petitioner was a minor; therefore, the application was rejected by the authorities on 11.10.2012. However, after attaining the age of majority, petitioner made application for grant of dependent employment, but same was rejected vide order dated 25.09.2021, on the ground that married daughters are not entitled to claim dependent employment. The reason assigned by the authorities appears to be 4 illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. The issues involved in the present case have already been considered and decided in the matter of Smt. Asha Pandey (supra), the relevant paragraphs No.28 & 29 are reproduced as under:- “(28) Thus, from the aforesaid cases it is quite vivid that marriage is a social circumstance and basic civil right of man and woman, and marriage by itself is not a disqualification. Thus, denial of dependent employment to married daughter of SECL employee is gender biased, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and it is clearly impermissble in law, as such, a clause in the National Coal Wage Agreement excluding consideration of married daughter for dependent employment, which has the force of law, is unjust, unfair and opposed to law. (29) As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed and consequently clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-VI, which has been made applicable to clause 9.4.0(I) of NCWA-IX, regarding dependent employment only to the married daughter is held to be violative and discriminatory and the said clause to the extent of impliedly excluding married daughter from consideration for dependent employment is hereby declared void and inoperative. Resultantly, impugned order dated 15.10.2015 Annexure P-1 rejecting the petitioner's claim for dependent employment on the ground of her marriage is hereby quashed being unsustainable in law and it is directed that Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-VI read with clause 9.4.0 of NCWA-IX be read in the manner to include the married daughter also as one of the eligibles subject to fulfillment of other conditions. 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.” 8. From bare reading of the above quoted judgment/order it is apparent that marriage is a fundamental civil right and not a disqualification for 5 dependent employment. The co-ordinate Bench while deciding the issue of dependent employement to a married daughter, declared NCWA clauses excluding married daughters from dependent employment unconstitutional, gender-biased, and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and quashed the rejection order of dependent employment and directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's claim for dependent employment afresh, treating married daughters as eligible dependents subject to fulfillment of other statutory conditions. 9. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down in the matter of Smt. Asha Pandey (supra), the impugned order dated 25.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) is not sustainable in law and the same is hereby quashed. The SCEL authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for dependent employment, particularly in the light of the order passed in the matter of Smt. Asha Pandey (supra), within a period of 90 days. 10.In the result, the petition is allowed. No order as to cost. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim