1 2026:CGHC:18020-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 314 of 2026 Smt. Asha Pandey W/o Anil Pandey (Before Marriage Asha Sharma) Aged About 30 Years Working As General Mazdoor Category - I, Jhiriya Mines Rajnagar, District Anuppur (M.P.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Coal India Ltd. Through its Chairman, Present Address Rajarhat, Kolkata (West Bengal). 2 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Chairman - Cum - Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mine Manager Jhiriya U.G. Mines South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdev Area, Ramnagar Sub Region, Anuppur (M.P.) ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh along with Ms. Azka Alam, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel, appearing for respondents/SECL. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2541 of 2025 (Smt. Asha Pandey vs. Coal India Ltd. & others), whereby the writ petition filed by writ petitioner / appellant herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the father of the appellant, late Shri Rampravesh Sharma, was working as a Senior Clerk under SECL, Bilaspur, and he died in harness on 08.02.2014 during his service tenure. The appellant thereafter applied for compassionate (dependent) employment; however, her application was rejected on 15.12.2015 mainly on the ground that, as per the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), a married daughter is not entitled to such employment. Aggrieved by the said rejection order dated 15.12.2015, the appellant challenged the same as well as the relevant provision of the National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “NCWA”), which prohibits consideration of a married daughter for dependent employment, by filing a writ petition before this Court, being WPS No. 4994 of 2015. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding that part of Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-VI and Clause 9.4.0(1) of NCWA - IX to be void and inoperative to the extent it excludes married daughter from consideration for dependent employment. Accordingly, a direction was issued to consider the claim of the appellant for dependent employment within a period of 45 days. The 3 respondents/SECL challenged the above order by filing Writ Appeal No. 246/2016 which was earlier allowed by this Court vide order dated 06.10.2018, but the appellant filed review petition and the matter was again heard and finally the writ appeal of the respondents was dismissed vide its order dated 03.09.2019. Thereafter, the respondents preferred SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed by its order dated 31.01.2020 in SLP (Civil) diary No. 238/2020. Thereafter also when the appellant was not granted employment, hence she filed contempt petition in the month of January 2022, and thereafter, notices were issued on 16.02.2022 and thereafter, the appellant’s case was considered and she was granted dependent employment and appointment order dated 03.03.2022 was issued and informed in the contempt petition. The appellant preferred a representation before the respondent authorities to grant appointment and service benefit i.e. seniority and monetary benefit within 45 days from 15.03.2016 as per order passed in WPS No. 4994/2015 and further filed a writ petition before this Court being WPS No. 2541 of 2025, seeking issuance of a direction to respondent authorities to consider her representation. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 06.02.2026. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition by failing to appreciate the complete factual and legal background of the case. 4 It is contended that the appellant had successfully litigated her claim for compassionate appointment up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the legality of the exclusion of married daughters from consideration under the NCWA was finally settled in her favour. Pursuant thereto, the appellant was granted appointment on 03.03.2022 itself, thereby acknowledging her entitlement. However, despite such appointment being granted only after prolonged litigation and contempt proceedings, the respondents have failed to extend consequential benefits such as seniority and monetary benefits from the date when the same ought to have been granted in terms of the earlier judicial directions. It is further submitted that the appellant had made a specific representation seeking grant of consequential service benefits within the time stipulated in the earlier judgment passed in WPS No. 4994 of 2015, but the same was not considered in its correct perspective. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing WPS No. 2541 of 2025, has failed to appreciate that once the right of the appellant to compassionate appointment stood crystallized through judicial pronouncements up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the consequential benefits flowing therefrom could not have been denied. 5. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant places reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Priti Lata Nanda, (2010) 11 SCC 674 (paras 21 and 22), wherein it has been held that once 5 appointment is granted pursuant to judicial directions, consequential benefits cannot be denied arbitrarily; Richa Mishra vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 4 SCC 179, wherein the Court reiterated the principle that denial of consequential benefits in such circumstances is impermissible; and C. Jayachandran vs. State of Kerala & Others, (2020) 5 SCC 230, wherein it has been held that once a right is crystallized, all consequential benefits naturally flow therefrom unless specifically excluded. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order suffers from non- consideration of binding precedents as well as material facts on record, and the same is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the claim of the appellant for grant of consequential service benefits such as notional seniority and monetary benefits from a back date is wholly misconceived and legally unsustainable. It is contended that the appointment granted to the appellant on 03.03.2022 was in compliance of the judicial directions issued in the earlier round of litigation, and the same was purely prospective in nature. Once the appellant has been appointed and has entered service pursuant to the said order, she cannot claim automatic retrospective benefits in absence of any specific direction or statutory provision permitting such grant. It is further submitted that compassionate appointment itself is an exception to the general rule of recruitment and cannot be 6 expanded to confer additional benefits beyond what has been expressly directed. 7. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the respondents places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh and Others vs. Ningam Siro and Others, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 689 (para 30), wherein it has been held that compassionate appointment cannot be treated as a source of vested right for claiming consequential benefits such as retrospective seniority or monetary advantages, and that such appointment is intended only to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the deceased employee. It is therefore submitted that, in the absence of any specific direction of the Court granting retrospective benefits, the claim of the appellant is not maintainable, and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the controversy in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, namely, whether the appellant, after having been granted compassionate appointment on 03.03.2022 in compliance of the earlier judicial directions, is entitled to claim consequential benefits of notional seniority and monetary benefits from an anterior date. 9. It is not in dispute that the appellant was granted compassionate appointment pursuant to the final adjudication of her claim up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the question that arises for 7 consideration is whether such appointment, in absence of any specific direction granting retrospective benefits, can automatically confer entitlement to backdated seniority and monetary benefits. The law on the subject is well settled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment and is intended only to provide immediate succour to the family of the deceased employee. It does not, by itself, create any vested right to claim consequential benefits unless expressly provided. 10. In this regard, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra), clearly holds that compassionate appointment cannot be treated as a source of vested right for claiming retrospective seniority or monetary advantages, and that such appointment is intended only for immediate financial relief. The said principle squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The reliance placed by the appellant on other judgments is distinguishable inasmuch as none of them lay down any absolute proposition that consequential benefits must follow as a matter of course in the absence of specific judicial direction. 11. In the present case, the appointment of the appellant having been granted on 03.03.2022 without any direction conferring retrospective benefits, the claim for notional seniority and monetary benefits from a back date is clearly unsustainable. The learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the legal position and rejected the writ petition. 8 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 13. The writ appeal is dismissed, being devoid of merit. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra