1 2026:CGHC:760 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9516 of 2023 1 - Nahid Parveen Wd/o Late Suhail Ahmed Aged About 48 Years R/o Behind Ankur Tent House, Old Bus Stand, Korba, District- Korba, Cg Presently Residing At- Behind Madina Masjid, Korba, Tehsil And Police Station- Korba,, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coal Fields Through Managing Director, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager Secl Dipka, Tehsil- Katghora,, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Personnel Manager Secl Dipka, Tehsil- Katghora,, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Taj B R/o In Front Of Petrol Pump, Mudpar, Secl, Tehsil And District- Korba, Cg ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Shailendra Dubey SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 “10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly call for records pertaining to service records of the petitioners husband. 10.2. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner with granting monetary and retiral benefits, with interest. 10.3. That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deemed just and fit in facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the husband of the petitioner, Late Shri Suhail Ahmed, was employed with the respondent authorities on the post of Dumper Operator. Unfortunately, he died during the course of service on 11.10.2012. The death of the deceased employee is evidenced by a death certificate, which has been placed on record by the petitioner. After the death of her husband, when the petitioner approached the respondent authorities for release of retiral dues and other service benefits, she was informed that the same could not be processed in the absence of a succession certificate in her favour. Consequently, to establish her legal status and entitlement, the petitioner was constrained to institute a civil suit before the competent civil court. The learned Court below, after due consideration, decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner by judgment and decree dated 15.11.2019. Pursuant thereto, a succession certificate was ultimately issued in favour of the petitioner on 19.01.2022, wherein she was declared to be the lawful heir of the deceased employee in the capacity of his widow. 3 After obtaining the succession certificate, the petitioner submitted repeated representations to the respondent authorities seeking release of retiral dues of her deceased husband and consideration of her case for compassionate appointment. Such representations, along with certified copies of the succession certificate, were submitted on several occasions, namely on 02.12.2019, 24.01.2022, 27.04.2022, 27.06.2022 and 17.04.2023. Despite these repeated efforts, no final decision was taken by the respondents, nor were any benefits released in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner further states that the respondent authorities merely informed her that her case had been forwarded to higher authorities for consideration; however, even thereafter, no concrete action was taken. It is also the case of the petitioner that her husband died at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, and the hospital did not provide certain documents, and further, the petitioner being the second wife of the deceased employee, the private respondent has not been cooperating by providing the identity documents of the deceased. On account of these alleged deficiencies, the respondent authorities have rejected or kept pending the claim of the petitioner, citing lack of documents. Aggrieved by the inaction and refusal of the respondents to grant retiral dues and compassionate appointment despite issuance of a succession certificate in her favour, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned inaction on the part of the respondents in not releasing the retiral dues, monetary benefits and in not considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that despite the death of the employee and the clear entitlement of the petitioner, the respondents have failed to discharge their statutory and constitutional obligations. It is further submitted that earlier the respondents had withheld the benefits on the ground that the petitioner did not possess a succession certificate. However, even after the petitioner obtained the succession certificate from the competent Court and the same was duly produced before the respondents, the retiral dues, monetary benefits and the benefit of compassionate appointment have still not been granted to her. Such conduct of the respondents, according to learned counsel, is unjustified and reflects total non-application of mind. Learned counsel also submits that as per the relevant rules, policies and provisions governing compassionate appointment and release of retiral benefits, the petitioner is legally entitled to the said benefits. There exists no legal impediment or bar for granting compassionate appointment and monetary benefits in favour of the petitioner, and the continued denial thereof is contrary to the settled principles of law. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the petitioner, being a widow, is surviving under acute financial distress and hardship. 5 She has been compelled to run from pillar to post for release of the retiral dues and other benefits. Despite issuance of the required certificates and even after a decree having been passed in her favour, the respondents have failed to provide her lawful dues, thereby depriving her of her legitimate rights and causing grave injustice. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3/SECL, while opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petition is misconceived and not maintainable in the present form. It is contended that there exists a serious and bona fide dispute with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner to claim retiral dues, monetary benefits and compassionate appointment. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner claims herself to be the widow of the deceased employee; however, as per the service records and information available with the respondents, the petitioner is the second wife of the deceased employee. The marital status of the petitioner and the validity of her claim as a legally wedded spouse are under dispute, and therefore, the respondents cannot be compelled to release the retiral dues or grant compassionate appointment without proper adjudication of such disputed questions of fact. It is also submitted that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and can be granted only in accordance with the applicable rules and policies. In the present case, due to the dispute regarding the legal status and entitlement of the petitioner, the 6 respondents are justified in withholding the benefits till the matter is finally resolved by a competent authority or court of law. Learned counsel lastly submits that the respondents have not acted arbitrarily or illegally, but have acted strictly in accordance with law and the governing service rules. Until the issue of entitlement of the petitioner is conclusively determined, no direction can be issued to the respondents for release of retiral dues or for grant of compassionate appointment, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection raised regarding the marital status of the petitioner is wholly untenable and misconceived. It is contended that in the petitioner’s community, second marriage is permissible under the relevant personal law and statutory provisions, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied her legitimate rights merely on the ground that she is the second wife of the deceased employee. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already obtained a succession certificate in her favour in Succession Case No. 8/13 from the competent Court, which conclusively recognizes her entitlement to the estate and dues of the deceased employee. It is further pointed out that the said succession certificate was challenged by the other party in appeal; however, the said appeal has also been dismissed, and as such, the succession certificate has attained finality. It is thus submitted that once the succession certificate stands affirmed and there is 7 no subsisting dispute with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner, the respondents have no justification to withhold the retiral dues or to deny consideration of the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment. The continued inaction on the part of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law. Learned counsel lastly submits that in view of the settled legal position and the final adjudication of the petitioner’s entitlement, the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment as well as release of all retiral and monetary dues in respect of her deceased husband, and therefore, appropriate directions may be issued to the respondents to grant the same. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the writ petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the pleadings as well as the documents placed on record, this Court finds that the undisputed fact is that the husband of the petitioner, Late Shri Suhail Ahmed, was working as a Dumper Operator under the respondent authorities and died in harness on 11.10.2012. After his death, the petitioner approached the respondents for release of retiral dues and consideration of her case for compassionate appointment, which was initially withheld on the ground of absence of a succession certificate. 8. From the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner thereafter approached the competent civil Court and 8 succeeded in obtaining a judgment and decree dated 15.11.2019, pursuant to which a succession certificate was issued in her favour on 19.01.2022 in Succession Case No. 8/13, declaring her to be the lawful heir of the deceased employee. It is also not in dispute that the said succession certificate was challenged by the other party in appeal, which appeal has already been dismissed, and thus, the succession certificate has attained finality. 9. The objection raised by the respondents with regard to the petitioner being the second wife of the deceased employee cannot be accepted at this stage to indefinitely deny consideration of her claim. Once a competent civil Court has adjudicated the issue of entitlement and issued a succession certificate in favour of the petitioner, and the same has attained finality, the respondents are duty-bound to consider the petitioner’s claim in light of the said succession certificate. The respondents cannot sit over the matter endlessly on the pretext of alleged disputes, particularly when such disputes stand resolved by a judicial determination. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the settled legal position that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is required to be considered strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and policies. However, the respondents are under an obligation to take a reasoned decision on the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and release of other service and retiral dues, instead of keeping the matter pending indefinitely. 9 10. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the petition with a direction. Accordingly, respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the succession certificate issued in her favour and to pass an appropriate order in respect of grant of compassionate appointment as well as other service and retiral dues payable on account of the deceased employee. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE