Ku. Ranu Vs South Eastern Coalfield Limited

¶1

1 / 7

¶2

Digitally signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2025.09.03 18:27:13 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:44960

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 954 of 2023

¶7

Order Reserved on : 20.08.2025 Order Delivered on : 03.09.2025

¶8

Ku. Ranu D/o Late Shri Mangal Prasad, Aged About 23 Years Caste Panika, R/o Ward No. 15, Near Electricity Office, Beside Javed Kirana Store, Amakherwa, Manendragarh, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Through - Its President / Management, South Eastern Coalfield Limited Head Office Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Manager, South Eastern Coalfield Limited Chirmiri, Tahsil Chirmiri, District Manendragarh - Chirmiri Bharatpur Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Sub Regional Manager, South Eastern Coalfield Limited O.C.P. Chirmiri, Tahsil Chirmiri, District Manendragarh - Chirmiri Bharatpur Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Ramsevak Soni, Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare and Mr. Sabra Sardhariya, Advocates

¶17

For Respondents/SECL : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate

¶18

2 / 7

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶20

C A V Order

¶21

1. Heard Mr. Ramsevak Soni, Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare and Mr. Sabra Sardhariya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶22

2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks indulgence of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the impugned order dated 08.07.2021, whereby the respondents/South Eastern Coalfields Limited (for short, “SECL”) have rejected the petitioner’s application for grant of dependent employment (compassionate appointment). The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for the following relief(s):-

¶23

“ (i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 08.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 3, in the interest of justice.

¶24

(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to reconsider/decide the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the compassionate basis within stipulate time according to law at looking to the problem of survival the

¶25

3 / 7

¶26

petitioner, in the interest of justice.

¶27

(iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. ”

¶28

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 08.07.2021 has been passed in an illegal and arbitrary manner on the ground that the application was filed after a delay of 11 years and that the petitioner’s name was not recorded as the daughter of Late Mangal Prasad in the service records. It is contended that Late Mangal Prasad expired in harness on 08.06.2008. Thereafter, on 04.01.2010, an application was submitted for grant of dependent employment stating that the son of the deceased, Chandra Prakash @ Chandra Kumar, being only 11 years old at that time, would be included in the live register on attaining majority and would then be considered for dependent employment. Subsequently, Chandra Prakash @ Chandra Kumar expired on 17.05.2020. Another daughter, Rina, had already expired on 27.01.2019. The fact regarding the death of Chandra Prakash @ Chandra Kumar was duly intimated by his mother, Smt. Manmati, to the respondent/SECL on 07.07.2021, along with a request that, in view of the said development, the present petitioner be considered for dependent employment. However, vide impugned order dated 08.07.2021, the said request was rejected. Thereafter, on 01.09.2021, the petitioner and her mother filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the petitioner be

¶29

4 / 7

¶30

declared as a legal heir of Late Mangal Prasad. The learned Family Court, Manendragarh, allowed the suit, and accordingly, necessary corrections were carried out in the records. It is further submitted that the present petitioner and her unmarried sister, Ku. Nikita, are residing with their mother, Smt. Manmati, whereas the other siblings, having been married, are residing separately at their matrimonial homes. The petitioner, being the only daughter staying with and taking care of her widowed mother, thereafter submitted a fresh application on 22.11.2022 seeking dependent employment.

¶31

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the very object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succor to the family of a deceased employee who dies in harness, leaving the family in financial distress. It is argued that the scheme of compassionate appointment is not to be construed in a rigid or pedantic manner, but in a purposive and beneficial way so as to achieve its true intent. The petitioner, having been declared as the legal heir of Late Mangal Prasad by the competent Court and the said declaration having attained finality, cannot be deprived of the benefit of compassionate appointment merely on technical grounds such as limitation or omission of her name in the earlier service records. It is further contended that the earlier application made in the year 2010 was well within time and was kept alive in the records of the respondent-SECL. The

¶32

5 / 7

¶33

subsequent application made by the petitioner after the demise of her brother Chandra Prakash @ Chandra Kumar, who was earlier considered for dependent employment but expired in 2020, is only in continuation of the said process and cannot be treated as a fresh or belated application.

¶34

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/SECL submits that the application has been filed at a highly belated stage. He contends that the petitioner’s name does not find place in the service records of the deceased employee, and therefore, her claim for grant of compassionate appointment could not, and cannot, be entertained. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director v. Smt. Parden Oraon, AIR Online 2021 SC 190 .

¶35

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶36

7. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that in the year 2010 itself, an application was moved by the mother of the petitioner seeking dependent employment, stating therein that the son of the deceased employee, Chandra Prakash @ Chandra Kumar, being a minor at that time, would be considered for such employment after attaining majority and that a proper application

¶37

6 / 7

¶38

would be moved at the relevant stage. However, since Chandra Prakash @ Chandra Kumar unfortunately expired in the year 2020 and one of the sisters of the petitioner also expired in the year 2019, the mother of the petitioner submitted an application in the year 2021, intimating the death of Chandra Prakash @ Chandra Kumar and requesting that the present petitioner be appointed in place of her deceased father.

¶39

8. Therefore, the contention of the respondent/SECL that the application is barred by limitation cannot be accepted. With respect to the second ground of rejection, namely that the petitioner’s name did not find place in the service record of the deceased employee, it is noted that the petitioner had approached the learned Family Court, which, after due consideration of the pleadings and evidence, passed a decree declaring the petitioner to be the daughter of Late Mangal Prasad. Thus, both objections raised by the respondent/SECL stand duly addressed and substantiated by appropriate proceedings and documents.

¶40

9. Accordingly, the denial of dependent employment by the SECL cannot be sustained in law. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondents on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parden Oraon (supra) is distinguishable on facts and would not govern the present case.

¶41

10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order

¶42

7 / 7

¶43

dated 08.07.2021 is hereby quashed. The respondent-authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of dependent employment strictly in accordance with law, and to complete the necessary formalities within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order.

¶44

11. There shall be no order as to cost(s).

¶45

Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶46

Yogesh

Ku. Ranu v. South Eastern Coalfield Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Ranu v. South Eastern Coalfield Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmala Sendre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jwala Prasad Lahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Manju Koshle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

R.L. Mishra Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Kumar Vs Mohd. Shakil Khan

Vrindavan Vs State of Chhattisgarh