RISHIRAJ SONAR v. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED
WPS/3870/2018 · 2026-04-21
Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7109 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7109 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2026:CGHC:18481
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3870 of 2018 * - Rishiraj Sonar S/o Late R.R.Sonar Aged About 27 Years R/o BCH Colony, Quarter No. B/14, P.O. Dhanpuri, P.S. Amlai, District : Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh
... Petitioner Versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager (Personnel/Man Power) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Area Personnel Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sohagpur Area, Area Head Quarter, District : Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh 4 - Sub Area Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dhanpuri Open Cast Mine, P.O. Sanjay Koyla Nagar, District : Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh 5 - Sub Manager (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dhanpuri Open Cast Mine, P.O. Sanjay Koyla Nagar, District : Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh
... Respondents For Petitioner : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate For Respondents/SECL : Mr. Satish Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board 22/04/2026
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 petitioner. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 21.02.2017 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent no. 5. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.04.23 17:20:55 +0530
2 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to grant employment to the petitioner being dependent 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 favour of the petitioner as per the National Coal Wage Agreement. 10.5 The Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the respondent Company to pay compensation to the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner’s valuable right is unnecessarily being denied by the respondent company. 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. Dr. Arpit Lall, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that father of the petitioner namely R.R. Sonar was posted as Foreman in Dhanpuri OCM Open Cast Mines and he died on 02.02.2016. The petitioner moved an application for grant of dependent employment which has been rejected by the respondent authorities vide order dated 21.02.2017 on the ground that the mother of the petitioner is a government servant. Dr. Arpit Lall would submit that the similar issue has already been decided by the coordinate bench of this Court in the matter of Gulshan Prakash Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors. passed in WPS No. 1445 of 2014 dated 21.12.2015 wherein
order impugned was set aside and respondents were directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner. He would contend that the order passed in WPS No. 1445/2014 was affirmed in WA No. 89 of 2016. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Satish Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/SECL would oppose. He would submit that in the matter of Sebron Ashawan Vs. South Eastern Coal Limited & Ors passed in WPS No. 5232/2021, the claim of the dependent was rejected on the
3 ground that one of the members of the family is employed with the government and WA No. 341/2021 was also dismissed. 4. A Circular/Notification issued by General Manager (P/MP) Manpower Department, SECL HQ dated 06.01.2025 has been placed by counsel appearing for the petitioner. This Circular clearly states that SECL in its 261st meeting held on 05.12.2024, has agreed for providing employment to the dependent, even wherein the spouse of the deceased employee is in service. The Circular/Notification dated 06.01.2025 is reproduced herein below:-
“dz-% ,lbZlh,y%ch,lih% J-’k-%2025%393 fnukad% 06-01-2025 To, Area General Manager, All Areas/Workshops/DCC, SECL General Manager (P/IR/NEE), SECL HQ Sub: Employment to the dependent wherein the spouse of the deceased employee is in service - discontinuation of ascertaining non- employment of spouse of ex-emplovee by way of affidavit for processing of dependent employment proposals Ref: i) Check-list for dependent employment matters circulated vide letter no. 804 dated 18.08.2021 ii) Letter no. 248 dated 22.11.2023 - Modalities for implementation of new SOP of dependent employment circulated vide letter no. 168 dated 29.08.2023 Dear Sir, CoFD of SECL in its 261" meeting held on 05.12.2024, has agreed for providing employment to the dependent, even wherein the spouse of the deceased employee is in service. In line with the decision of CoFD, the requirement of ascertaining non- employment of spouse of ex- employee by way of affidavit (for processing the dependent employment proposals under provisions of NCWA, as communicated vide letters no. 804 dated 18.08.2021 and 248 dated 22.11.2023 referenced above) stands null & void and therefore, may be dispensed with. This for your kind information and implementation of the decision of CoFD as above. Yours sincerely SD/- General Manager (PMP) Manpower Dept, SECL HQ
4 Copy through e-mail to:
1. TS to CMD, SECL HQ - for kind information of CMD, SECL
2.
TS to D(P), SECL HQ - for kind information of D(P), SECL 3.APMs-All Areas/Workshops/DCC, SECL
4. Dealing executives of Manpower department”
5. Taking into consideration the Circular dated 06.01.2025 issued by the SECL Headquarter, the order impugned dated 21.02.2017 is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner afresh in light of Circular dated 06.01.2025 within a period of 90 days. 6. With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), this petition is
disposed of. Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge vatti