1 CGHC010377092023 2026:CGHC:39181 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9254 of 2023  Neha Prajapati D/o Late Shri Dayachandra Prajapati Aged About 23 Years R/o Behind State Bank Of India, Kotma Colliery, Annuppur, District : Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Through The Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through Sub-Regional Manager, Amadand, District : Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 07.09.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant the death benefits alongwith other emoluments of Dayachandra Prajapati to the petitioner with interest @18%. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be 2 pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant the petitioner compassionate appointment as per her qualifications. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, to which this Hon'ble Court may deems just and proper in the interest of justice. 2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner’s father namely Dayachandra Prajapati, who was working on the post of General Mazdoor under the respondent authorities died in harness on 20.01.2004. Name of petitioner was not present in the service record of deceased employee. Subsequently, she approached the respondent authorities seeking dependent employment as well as terminal benefits but no heed was paid. Petitioner also filed Civil Suit No. 11-A/2020 claiming herself to the legal daughter of deceased employee and the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 31.07.2023. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the name of petitioner’s grandmother found place in the service record but terminal benefits were not extended to her during her lifetime, therefore petitioner being the daughter of the deceased employee is entitled for dependent employment as well as terminal benefits. She prays to allow this petition. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. He submits that civil suit filed by the petitioner claiming herself to be the legal daughter of deceased employee was dismissed by the competent Civil Court vide judgment dated 3 31.07.2023. He further submits that since the petitioner failed to establish that she is the daughter of deceased employee, she is not entitled to seek dependent employment as well as terminal benefits. He also submits that this petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 6) Admittedly, name of petitioner’s grandmother was in the service record of deceased Dayachandra Prajapati but she could not receive terminal benefits during her lifetime. Also, the civil suit filed by the petitioner, claiming lineage to the deceased employee was dismissed by the competent Civil Court vide judgment dated 31.07.2023. 7) As the petitioner could not establish the factum of lineage and her name does not finds place in the service record of deceased employee, she has no right to claim dependent employment. By applying similar reasoning, the petitioner is not entitled to seek terminal benefits. 8) In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am not inclined to grant any relief as prayed for in the writ petition. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y A Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.09 11:05:55 +0530