Dismissed¶47

Ramayan Das v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Chhattisgarh HC27 Aug 2025WPS/1547/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; dependent employment; age limit 35 years on date of death; National Coal Wage Agreement NCWA-VI & IX; South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL); Age Determination Committee; medical determination of age; Aadhaar card date of birth not conclusive proof; Voter ID; birth certificate issued after death; source of birth certificate not proved; service record lacking date of birth; Korba; Balangi Sub-Area; Surakachhar Mines; Gevra Project; Tendal; General Mazdoor; Bandhan Kunwar; Dheer Sai; Dhan Das; WPS No. 1197 of 2018; WPS No. 1547 of 2018; 2025:CGHC:43783; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.; writ petitions dismissed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The date of birth mentioned in the Aadhaar card or Voter ID cannot be treated as conclusive proof of age. ¶42

Ramayan Das Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders rejecting the petitioners' applications for dependent employment/compassionate appointment on the ground that they had crossed the permissible age limit of 35 years on the date of death of the deceased employees call for interference. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

Under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA-VI & IX), a claim for dependent employment can be considered only if the age of the dependent is below 35 years on the date of the death of the deceased employee.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The date of birth mentioned in the Aadhaar card or Voter ID cannot be treated as conclusive proof of age.

¶42

Key takeaways

The birth certificates relied upon by the petitioners were admittedly issued in 2017 and 2018, and the petitioners neither pleaded nor proved the source of those certificates; they therefore could not be treated as reliable proof of age.ratio¶42
The service records did not contain the dates of birth of the petitioners, and the department, finding no conclusive proof regarding age, was justified in referring the matter to the Age Determination Committee.ratio¶43
The findings of the Age Determination Committee — that petitioner Keshav was 37.6 years and petitioner Ramayan Das was 42.6 years of age at the time of death of the deceased employees — being findings of an expert body, cannot be interfered with in the absence of concrete contrary material.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.), 28.08.2025 — WPS No. 1197 of 2018 (Keshav) and WPS No. 1547 of 2018 (Ramayan Das) v. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & others: Two writ petitions challenged the orders dated 13/19.01.2017 (Sub Area Manager, SRK, Balangi Sub-Area) and 07/08.06.2017 (General Manager, SECL Gevra Project) rejecting the petitioners' applications for dependent employment/compassionate appointment on the ground that each was over 35 years of age when the deceased employee died (Keshav's father, a Tendal, died 16.05.2015; Ramayan Das's mother, Smt. Bandhan Kunwar, a General Mazdoor, died 01.09.2011). Held: (i) the date of birth in an Aadhaar card or Voter ID is not conclusive proof of age; (ii) the birth certificates produced were admittedly issued in 2017–2018, long after the deaths, and their source was neither pleaded nor proved; (iii) the service records contained no dates of birth, and the Age Determination Committee's medical assessment — Keshav 37.6 years, Ramayan Das 42.6 years — being findings of an expert body, could not be interfered with absent concrete contrary material; (iv) under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA-VI & IX), dependent employment is available only if the dependent is below 35 years on the date of the employee's death. Writ petitions dismissed; no cost(s).

¶1

-1-

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2025:CGHC:43783

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1197 of 2018

¶7

Keshav Late Shri Dheer Sai, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Chhurikhurd, Police Station Chhurikala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

--- Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1- South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2- The General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sam Surakachhar, Balangi Sub Area, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3- The Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Ivhc, Secl, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4- The Sub Area Manager, Srk, Balangi, Sub Area, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

--- Respondent(s)

¶15

and

¶16

WPS No. 1547 of 2018

¶17

Ramayan Das S/o S/o Late Shri Dhan Das, Aged About 32 Years R/o Vijay Nagar (Junadih), Post Gevra, District Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶18

--- Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶21

-2-

¶22

2 - The General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Gevra Project, District Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶23

3 - The Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Ivhc, Secl, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶24

4 - The Senior Manager (Personnel), Secl, Gevra Project, District Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶25

--- Respondent(s)

¶26

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶27

For Petitioners : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh Advocate and

¶28

Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate

¶29

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶30

Order on Board

¶31

28.08.2025

¶32

1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 13/19.01.2017 passed by the Sub Area Manager, SRK, Balangi Sub-Area, District Korba, and the order dated 07/08.06.2017 passed by the General Manager, SECL Gevra Project, whereby the applications preferred by the petitioners for dependent employment/compassionate appointment have been rejected on the ground that at the time of the death of the deceased employees, the petitioners were more than 35 years of age.

¶33

1. Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would argue that the father of the petitioner Keshav died on 16.05.2015, who was working on the post of Tendal under the Sub Area Manager, Surakachhar Mines, Balangi

¶34

-3-

¶35

Sub-Area. The mother of the petitioner-Ramayana Das, namely Smt. Bandhan Kunwar died on 01.09.2011, who was working as a General Mazdoor. Applications for dependent employment were moved on 17.02.2016 and 16.09.2011, respectively, but both applications were rejected on the ground that the petitioners were more than 35 years of age on the date of the death of the deceased employees.

¶36

He would further submit that, as per Aadhaar cards, Voter ID, service book entries, and birth certificates, the petitioners were below the age of 35 years on the date of death of their father and mother, but those documents were not considered by the authorities. Instead, the petitioners were referred to the Age Determination Committee, which assessed the age of petitioner Keshav as 37 years 6 months, and that of the petitioner Ramayan Das as 42 years 6 months. It is contended that when the documentary evidence was available to the respondents, there was no necessity for referring the matter to the Age Determination Committee. Learned counsel prays for quashing the orders dated 13/19.01.2017 and 07/08.06.2017.

¶37

1. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would argue that the petitioners failed to produce conclusive proof regarding their dates of birth; therefore, the matter was rightly referred to the Age Determination Committee. The Committee medically examined the petitioners and opined that the petitioner Keshav was 37.6 years and the petitioner Ramayan Das was 42.6 years at the relevant date. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not

¶38

-4-

¶39

challenged the findings of the Age Determination Committee. The counsels appearing for the respondents also contended that the birth certificates relied upon by the petitioners were issued only in the years 2017 and 2018, much after the death of the employees, and therefore cannot be treated as reliable proof. Accordingly, the petitions deserve to be dismissed.

¶40

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file.

¶41

1. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner, Keshav, died on 16.05.2015, and the mother of the petitioner, Ramayan Das, died on 01.09.2011, while in employment under the respondents. The applications for compassionate appointment moved by the petitioners were rejected by the respondent authorities on the ground that they had crossed the permissible age limit, i.e., 35 years, for employment on the date of the death of the employees.

¶42

1. The petitioners have placed reliance on the Aadhaar card, Voter ID, service record, and birth certificates. However, it is well settled that the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhaar card or Voter ID cannot be treated as conclusive proof of age. With regard to the birth certificates, the same were admittedly issued in the years 2017 and 2018. The petitioners have not pleaded or proved the source of those certificates.

¶43

1. In the service records, the dates of birth of the petitioners are not available. When the department did not find any conclusive proof regarding the age, the

¶44

-5-

¶45

matter was referred to the Age Determination Committee. The Committee medically examined the petitioners and opined that the petitioner Keshav was 37.6 years old and the petitioner Ramayan Das was 42.6 years of age at the time of the death of their father & mother (deceased employees). These findings are given by an expert body, and the same cannot be interfered with in the absence of any concrete contrary material.

¶46

As per the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA- VI & IX), the claim for dependent employment can be considered only if the age of the dependent is below 35 years on the date of the death of the deceased employee. In the present case, since the petitioners were found to be more than 35 years of age, their applications were rightly rejected by the respondent authorities.

¶47

10) In view of the above discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders impugned. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed . No cost(s).

¶48

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶49

Nadim

Ramayan Das v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramayan Das v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation ( Transport Department ) Vs Jasbeer Singh Bagga

Bindulata Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmendra Kumar Kunjam Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Kumar Chhatriya Vs Sachin Gorakh

Ram Kumar Aandil Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Singh Vs Union of India