Ku. Shikha Shriwas v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

2025:CGHC:49939 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1170 of 2016 Ku. Shikha Shriwas D/o. Late Shri Dev Prasad Shriwas, Aged About 36 Years R/o Bhartiya Nagar, Near Income Tax Office, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director South Eastern Coalfield Limted, P.O. Box No. 16, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Personnel South Eastern Coalfields Limted, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - General Manager, Personnel And Administration South Eastern Coalfields Limted, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - General Manager, Mines , Pali, Birsinghpur Sub Area, Post Birsingpur Pali, District Umariya, Madhya Pradesh. 5 - Personnel Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limted, Pali, Group Office Of General Manager, Mines, Sub Area, Pali, Birsinghpur, Pali, District Umariya, Madhya Pradesh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner:Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, AdvocateMs. Naushina Afrin Ali, AdvocateFor Respondents:Mr. Vaibhav K. Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh RajputOrder On Board 07/10/2025 1. 1.Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs : “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents, for its kind perusal. 10.2. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and quash the impugned order/communication dated 04.09.2014 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 3. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and direct the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner in the light of NCWA policy within a specified time frame. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and direct the respondent authorities to release the retiral dues of the deceased employee in favour of the petitioner. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner. 10.6 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.” 2. 2. Fact of the case, as projected in the instant writ petition, are that father of the petitioner was working as Security Guard with the Respondent – South Eastern Coalfields Limited. He died on 15.03.2000 during the course of employment. After death of petitioner’s father, her mother made an application for compassionate appointment on 05.04.2000 praying the respondent 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner. 10.6 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.” 2. 2. Fact of the case, as projected in the instant writ petition, are that father of the petitioner was working as Security Guard with the Respondent – South Eastern Coalfields Limited. He died on 15.03.2000 during the course of employment. After death of petitioner’s father, her mother made an application for compassionate appointment on 05.04.2000 praying the respondent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the present petitioner (her daughter). The respondents- SECL asked the mother of the petitioner by writing a letter dated 19.12.2000 to furnish succession certificate to claim the gratuity amount and compassionate appointment. In the meanwhile, petitioner's mother expired on 30.9.2004 and till the time of her death, no correspondence whatsoever pertaining to grant of compassionate appointment as well as release of retiral dues of her late husband was never communicated to the petitioner's mother or to the petitioner. After the sad demise of her mother, the petitioner again started making applicant for grant of compassionate appointment and prayed the respondent No. 4 for grant of compassionate appointment. The petitioner kept making representation after representation right from June, 2005 to consider her case for compassionate appointment and release of retiral dues of her late father. She also requested the respondent authorities to release the retiral dues of her late father, as the required formalities pertaining to legal heir and succession has been settled by the Court. Despite several applications / communications, no step were initiated by the respondents authorities either to grant compassionate appointment or to settle the retiral dues of her late father. It is mentionable here that after having filed several representations alongwith a succession certificate, the respondent No. 4 – SECL by way of letter dated 26.5.2011 i.e. after nearly 11 years of submission of representation by the petitioner's mother, has pointed out certain defects in the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment and asked her to rectify the same and submit afresh. Thereafter, the petitioner again wrote a letter on 19.8.2011 to respondent No. 4 – SECL so as to supply a proper format so that the petitioner would submit the application afresh with all the required documents/formalities. The respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 24.08.2011 replied to the petitioner that since the name of the petitioner did not find place in the service record of her late father, her application of compassionate appointment cannot be considered and finally on 10.12.2011, it was informed to the petitioner that she cannot be granted compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being WPS No. 188/2012 before this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 03.04.2014, quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to respondent No. 2 to consider it afresh in light of policy/rules/agreement prevailing at the time for appointment on compassionate grounds. Respondent No. 3 after receipt of copy of order dated 3.4.2014, passed the impugned order / communication and rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the name of the petitioner did not find place in the service book of deceased employee and secondly, the application was belated one. Hence, this petition. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the daughter of Late Dev Prasad Shriwas, who was working as Security Guard with the respondents and died in harness on 15.03.2000 while on duty. He submits that after the death of her father, mother of the petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment to her daughter (petitioner) on 05.04.2000 (Annexure P/3). On 19.12.2000 vide Annexure P/4, the respondent No. 5 had written a letter address to the mother of the petitioner- Smt. Kamla Shrivas and one Smt. Pannavati to produce succession certificate so as to claim of the gratuity amount of the deceased and compassionate appointment may be settled. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner alongwith children filed an application for issuance of succession certificate in their favour before the First Civil Judge, Class-I and vide order dated 12.11.2003, the succession certificate was granted in favour of the petitioner and her mother. The succession certificate was submitted in the Officer of the respondents 5 authority and even then no reply or communication was received by the petitioner’s mother on her application for compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Subsequently, on 30.09.2004 the petitioner’s mother died thereafter, on 29.06.2005 and 09.01.2006, Annexure P/6 and Annexure P/7 again the petitioner made a request to the respondents for grant of compassionate appointment. Continuous representations were made from the year 2009 to 2011 for grant of compassionate appointment and vide reply dated 26.05.2011 (Annexure P/9), it was informed to the petitioner by the respondents that there are certain defects in the application and the same may be submitted again after rectifying the defects. However, vide order dated 10.12.2011 (Annexure P/1), application for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner was rejected by the respondents. Later on, the petitioner again obtained a succession certificate from the competent Court of jurisdiction on 23.09.2011 and the order dated 10.12.2011 (Annexure P/1) was subject to challenge by the petitioner in WPS No. 188 of 2012, in which, this Court vide its order dated 03.04.2014 set-aside the order of rejection of the application for compassionate appointment by the respondents and directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 04.09.2014 (Annexure-P/1), the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was again rejected holding that there is a delay and laches of 10 years in making the application and there is dispute on the part of the family members. He submits that the mother of the petitioner is the first wife of the deceased employee and the petitioner is the daughter from the first wife. One Pannvati is said to be the second wife of the deceased - father of the petitioner, whose name was reflected in the service record of the father of the petitioner. As succession certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioner by the competent Court, in which, said Pannavati was also a party, which has been further affirmed by the appellate Court and, as such, the application for compassionate appointment was already made by the mother of the petitioner in the year 2000, therefore, the application for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected being on account of delay and latches. He submits that as per Clause 9.5.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement- VI (for short, 'NCWA-VI'), if the female dependent is below the age of 45 years, she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 3,000/- per month or employment. The petitioner at present is less than 45 years of age and she has been agitating her claim for compassionate appointment first through her mother and later through herself from the year 2000, therefore, the impugned order, being unsustainable, is liable to be set aside and respondents - SECL be directed to consider the case of the petition for compassionate appointment and pass appropriate order. 4.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents- SECL vehemently opposes the submissions and submits that in the service record of the deceased /employee late Dev Prasad Shriwas, name of one Pannawati was mentioned, as his wife / nominee and also in the Form- 'F' for the purpose of payment of gratuity. He further submits that only Smt. Pannawati could have the right to get the monetary compensation or employment and Smt. Pannawati has not nominated the present petitioner for grant of any compassionate appointment, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, as claimed. He further submits that the petitioner could have survived for so many years and the impugned order clearly reflects that there is delay of 10 years in making the claim, therefore, impugned order has rightly been passed taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter, which does not require any interference. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Neeraj Kumar Uke Vs. State of 1Chhattisgarh & others, Santosh Kumar Rajwade Vs. Chairman,Chhattisgarh State Power Companies, Raipur, District Raipur,Chhattisgarh2, judgment of Bombay High Court in the matter of Shubham Vs.State of Maharashtra & others3and judgment of High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the matter of Kuldeep Bedia Vs. M/s Central Coalfields Limited &others4and prays that impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6.Before delving into merits of the case, this Court would like to notice the NCWA-VI relating to dependent employment, which is filed as Annexure P-19 in the instant petition. Clause 9.5.0 is pertinent to be quoted herein below as under :- “9.5.0 Employment / 3Monetary compensation to female dependent (i)In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependent would have the option to either accept the monetary compensation of Rs.4,000/- per month or employment irrespective of her age. (ii)in case of death/total permanent disablement due to cause other than mine accident and medical unfitness under Clause 9.4.0., if the female dependent is below the age of 45 years she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs.3,000/- per month or employment. 1Writ Appeal No. 334 of 2021, decided on 10.12.2021 2WPS No. 3054 of 2021, decided on 19.07.2021 3Writ Petition No. 3187 of 2022, decided on 03.10.2023 4L.P.A. No. 111 of 2024, decided on 13.8.2024. In case the female dependent is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment.” 7.According to aforesaid provision, if any female dependent of the Workman is surviving and she is below the age of 45, she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs.3,000/- per month or employment. It also envisages that if the female dependent is above 45 years of age, then she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment. 1Writ Appeal No. 334 of 2021, decided on 10.12.2021 2WPS No. 3054 of 2021, decided on 19.07.2021 3Writ Petition No. 3187 of 2022, decided on 03.10.2023 4L.P.A. No. 111 of 2024, decided on 13.8.2024. In case the female dependent is above 45 years of age she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment.” 7.According to aforesaid provision, if any female dependent of the Workman is surviving and she is below the age of 45, she will have the option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs.3,000/- per month or employment. It also envisages that if the female dependent is above 45 years of age, then she will be entitled only to monetary compensation and not to employment. 8.It is not in dispute that father of petitioner was employed with the respondents- SECL as 'Security Guard' and died in harness on 15.03.2000. 9.Perusal of application dated 05.04.2000 (Annexure P-3) clearly indicates that an application was made by mother of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment in favour of her daughter (petitioner herein). The documents appended with the writ petition also indicates that respondents authorities has asked the petitioner's mother to obtain succession certificate. The said succession certificate has been obtained by petitioner's mother, in which, said Smt. Pannawati was also a party. The said succession certificate was subject to challenge by her unsuccessfully. The record also reflects that in service record of petitioner's father late Dev Prasad Shriwas, name of Smt. Panawati has also mentioned as his wife. However, impugned order dated 4.9.2014 (Annexure P-1) also reflects that the deceased employee had also submitted an option for availing LTC in lieu of RPF in the year 1987, in which, he had declared Smt. Panawati Devi as his wife and Miss. Chhaya & Miss. Shikha Shriwas (petitioner herein) as his daughters and Smt. Sadhmati Devi as his mother. As such, in light of Succession Certificate granted in favour of the petitioner, as also in light of the impugned order, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not dependent upon the deceased employee. 10.Though, an argument has been advanced by Shri Vaibhav K. Agrawal, counsel for respondents- SECL that instant petition suffers from delay & latches and as Smt. Pannawati was the only dependent upon the deceased and she has not nominated the present petitioner for compassionate appointment, case of the petitioner could not be considered. This submission is liable to be repelled on the ground that immediately after death of deceased employee, an application for compassionate appointment was made by mother of the petitioner. Apart from this, as name of Smt. Panawati was also mentioned as wife of deceased employee in service record, therefore, dispute arose between the family members. The dispute continued for years together and initially petitioner's application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the respondents- SECL, which was set aside by this Court vide order dated 03.04.2014 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 188 of 2012 {Ku. Shikha Shrivas Vs. Union of India & Others} and directed the respondents- SECL to pass the impugned order afresh with regard to compassionate appointment of the petitioner in accordance with law and ultimately, in the year 2014, impugned order was passed dis-entitling the petitioner for dependent employment hence it cannot be said that the petition suffers from delay & latches and filed in a belated stage. 11.It is not the case of the petitioner, that petitioner was sleeping over her right for so many years, rather from the documents on record, it is quite evident that she has been pursuing her claim for compassionate appointment from the inception i.e. immediately from the death of deceased-employee. The case law, which have been cited by learned counsel for the respondents, in the given facts & circumstances of the case, did not helpful to him and are 11.It is not the case of the petitioner, that petitioner was sleeping over her right for so many years, rather from the documents on record, it is quite evident that she has been pursuing her claim for compassionate appointment from the inception i.e. immediately from the death of deceased-employee. The case law, which have been cited by learned counsel for the respondents, in the given facts & circumstances of the case, did not helpful to him and are distinguishable to the facts of the instant case. Furthermore, as per submission of Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents- SECL that name of Smt. Pannawati is also mentioned in the service record of the deceased employee, but the facts remains that succession certificate was granted in favour of the petitioner, which was unsuccessfully challenged the Smt. Pannwati, therefore, this submission also does not helpful for the respondents- SECL. 12.In the instant case, the petitioner is female dependent upon the deceased employee and the respondents- SECL cannot ignore the provisions contained in National Coal Wage Agreement-VI and to avoid its obligation under Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI. 13.In view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. Thus, impugned order dated 4.9.2014 is set aside. The respondents -SECL are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment expeditiously preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 14.The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Ami (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge AMITADigitally signed byAMITA DUBEYDate: 2025.10.14DUBEY18:25:45 +0530