Dismissed¶40

Smt. Praveen v. South Eastern Coal Field Ltd.

Chhattisgarh HC22 Jul 2025WPS/949/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; dependent employment; married daughter; SECL; NCWA-VI Clause 9.4.0; five-year limitation; delay of nearly 11 years; not a vested right; mitigation of immediate financial hardship; WPS No. 949 of 2018; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.; decision dated 23/07/2025; petition dismissed, no costs; related: WPS No.4994/14 Smt. Asha Pandey v. CIL & Ors. (cited by counsel).

What did the court decide?

Under Clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA-VI the prescribed limitation period to seek compassionate appointment is five years from the date of the employee's death; the application moved on 17.04.2017, nearly 11 years after the death on 14.08.2006, was far beyond the permissible limit. ¶38

Smt. Praveen Vs South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 09.11.2017 and 17.04.2023 rejecting the petitioners' claim for compassionate appointment are liable to be quashed and the respondents directed to consider the claim of petitioner No.1. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed the writ petition, with no costs.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

¶38

Key takeaways

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but is provided to mitigate the immediate financial hardship caused by the sudden demise of the earning member; after such a long lapse of time the very object of the scheme stands defeated.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPS No. 949 of 2018, High Court of Chhattisgarh, decided 23/07/2025 by Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.) by the second wife (petitioner No.2) and her married daughter (petitioner No.1) of Injor Say, an SDL Operator who died in harness at Bartunga Colliery, SECL on 14.08.2006, challenging rejection of their claim for compassionate appointment by orders dated 09.11.2017 and 17.04.2023. The first wife's earlier claim had been rejected (memo dated 11.11.2009) amid a marital-status dispute; her declaratory suits ended in a compromise decree (Civil Suit No. 6A/2007, Clause 4 modified in FAM No. 66/2013, order dated 20.01.2015) and ultimate dismissal (judgment and decree dated 04.04.2017). The Court held that under Clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA-VI the limitation for seeking compassionate appointment is five years from the employee's death, and the application moved on 17.04.2017 came nearly 11 years late, far beyond the permissible limit; compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a measure to mitigate immediate financial hardship, whose object stood defeated after such a lapse. Petition dismissed; no costs.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 949 of 2018

¶5

1 - Smt. Praveen D/o Late Injor Say, (W/o Rajram), Aged About 26 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Village And Post Badsara, Police Station And Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

2 - Indrakunwar @ Inkunwar, W/o Wd/o Late Injor Say, Aged About 47 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Village And Post Badsara, Police Station And Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. Through The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Basant Vihar, Seepat Road, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - The General Manager, Chirmiri Sub-Area, Secl, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - The Sub Area Manager, Underground Mines, Chirmiri, Sub-Area, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - The Deputy Manager, Hr/p, Chirmiri Underground Sub-Area, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

23/07/2025

The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶20

“10.1. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or of like nature to quash the order dated 08/09-11-2017 (Annexure P/1) and the impugned order dated 17.04.2023 (ANNEXURE P/9).

¶21

10.2. That the command/direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to produce the entire records pertaining to the present case for kind perusal.

¶22

10.3. Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper may also be awarded to the Petitioner including the cost of the petition. ”

¶23

Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the father of petitioner No.1 and the husband of petitioner No.2, namely Injor Say, was working as an SDL Operator at Bartunga Colliery, SECL, and died in harness on 14.08.2006. He would further submit that the late Injor Say had two wives, namely Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Indrakunwar @ Inkunwar. After his death, an application for compassionate appointment was submitted by Smt. Shanti Devi, which was turned down by SECL authorities vide memo dated 11.11.2009 on the ground that there was a dispute with regard to the entitlement between two wives. Smt. Shanti Devi was directed by SECL to obtain an appropriate decree from a competent Court.

¶24

Mr. Gupta would also submit that a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No. 6A/2007 was filed by Smt. Shanti Devi seeking a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the late Injor Say and that the second wife, Smt. Indrakunwar has no right. The suit was compromised between Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Indrakunwar, and as per Clause 4 of the compromise decree, Smt. Shanti Devi was to get the benefit of dependent employment. He contends that the respondent/SECL

¶25

¶26

challenged the said judgment and decree by filing FAM No. 66/2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.01.2015, and Clause 4 of the compromise decree passed in judgment dated 26.09.2007 was modified to the extent that the same would not be binding on SECL unless the legal status of Smt. Shanti Devi is declared by a competent Court.

¶27

He would further contend that thereafter, Smt. Shanti Devi instituted another civil suit seeking a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of late Injor Say. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 04.04.2017. He would also contend that since Smt. Shanti Devi was not declared to be the legally wedded wife. Petitioner No.2 (Indrakunwar) moved an application for compassionate appointment on behalf of petitioner No.1 (her daughter) on 17.04.2017, which was rejected by the respondent authorities vide order dated 09.11.2017 on the ground that a married daughter is not entitled to the dependent employment.

¶28

He would argue that the issue regarding the entitlement of a married daughter to compassionate appointment is no longer res integra and has been decided in WPS No.4994/14, the parties being Smt. Asha Pandey v. CIL & Ors., wherein the learned writ Court held that a married daughter is also entitled to the dependent employment.

¶29

He further argues that since a civil suit was pending, the period of limitation would start to run from the date of judgment and decree passed by the competent Court, and therefore, the application was within limitation. He prays for quashing the orders dated 09.11.2017 and 17.04.2023 and seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions and would submit that the application moved by Smt.

¶31

¶32

Shanti Devi for the grant of dependent employment was rejected by SECL authorities vide memo dated 11.11.2009. He would further submit that thereafter, a suit was filed by Smt. Shanti Devi against SECL and petitioner No.2, which was settled between them. He would also submit that even after obtaining a decree in the said civil suit, Smt. Shanti Devi did not approach the authorities for compassionate employment, and her application was never reconsidered or rejected thereafter.

¶33

He would further contend that a subsequent suit filed by Smt. Shanti Devi for the declaration of her legal status as the wife of late Injor Say was dismissed. He would also contend that late Injor Say died in the year 2006, and after a lapse of almost 19 years, it would not be appropriate to grant a compassionate appointment, especially when the petitioners have survived during these years. He would also submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed on grounds of both merit and delay.

¶34

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

¶35

10.In the present case, late Injor Say died on 14.08.2006. There was a dispute between his two wives, Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Indrakunwar with regard to their entitlement to a compassionate appointment. Initially, Smt. Shanti Devi’s application was rejected by SECL on 11.11.2009. Thereafter, no fresh application was made by her. An application was subsequently moved by petitioner No.2 (Indrakunwar) on behalf of her daughter (petitioner No.1) on 17.04.2017, which was rejected on 09.11.2017, on the ground that a married daughter is not entitled to compassionate appointment, and again on 17.04.2023, on the ground of delay beyond the prescribed limitation.

¶36

11.As per Clause 9.4.0 of the NCWA-VI, the prescribed limitation period to seek compassionate appointment is five years from the date of the

¶37

¶38

death of the employee. In this case, since late Injor Say died on 14.08.2006 and the application was moved only on 17.04.2017, there was a delay of nearly 11 years, which is far beyond the permissible limit.

¶39

12.It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have survived all these years without employment assistance. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but is provided to mitigate the immediate financial hardship due to the sudden demise of the earning member. After such a long lapse of time, the very object of the scheme stands defeated.

¶40

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE

¶43

Nadim

Smt. Praveen v. South Eastern Coal Field Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Praveen v. South Eastern Coal Field Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sushma Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Anjali Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Prem Shankar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramashanker Gupta Vs Shri Suraj Pal Gupta

Jageshwar Singh Dhruv Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Dhankesi Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh