Siyawati Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.01.1618:26:37 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:2554

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 2899 of 2023

¶7

1 - Siyawati W/o Late Jagatdhari Aged About 52 Years R/o Premnagar West Chrimiri Colliery, P.S. Podi, Tahsil Baikunthpur,district Korea Chhattisgarh Now Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Ku. Shobha D/o Siyawati Aged About 29 Years R/o Premnagar West Chrimiri Colliery, P.S. Podi, Tahsil Baikunthpur,district Korea Chhattisgarh Now Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Nandani D/o Siyawati Aged About 25 Years R/o Premnagar West Chrimiri Colliery, P.S. Podi, Tahsil Baikunthpur,district Korea Chhattisgarh Now Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The General Manager, Seepat Road Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - The Chief General Manager (S.E.C.L.) Chirmiri Area, District Korea Chhattisgarh Now Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Mines Manager, S.E.C.L. Domanhil Colliery, District Korea Chhattisgarh Now Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Area Manager Domhanil Colliery, (North Chirmiri), Chirmiri, District Korea Chhattisgarh Now Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatapur Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Assistant Manager (Personel) Domhanil, (North Chirmiri) District Korea Chhattisgarh Now Manendragarh Chrimiri Bharatpur Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶17

2

¶18

For Petitioners	: Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate
For Respondents	: Mr. PankajAgrawal, Advocate

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board

¶20

15.01.2026

¶21

1. The petitioners have filed this petition with the following relief(s) :-

¶22

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the present petition, in the interest of justice.

¶23

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/ writs orders directing the respondents authorities either to give compassionate appointment to her daughter i.e. petitioner no. 2 and 3 or to provide monthly monetary compensation declared by the respondent authorities amounting to Rs. 26,292.97/- per month up to the age of 60 years from the date of filing application.

¶24

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities for also releasing the pension amount from the death of deceased in till date continuously, in the interest of justice.

¶25

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the case along with the cost of the petitioner. ”

¶26

2. Brief facts of the case are that the husband of petitioner No.1,

¶27

namely Jagdhari, was working as a General Category employee-I under the respondent authorities. He unfortunately died in harness on 11.12.1998 while in active service. Immediately after his death, petitioner No.1, being the legally wedded wife of the

¶28

3

¶29

deceased employee, submitted an application dated 19.01.1999 seeking compassionate appointment and release of retiral benefits, followed by several reminders.

¶30

3. However, an objection was raised by one Shyam Kumari, claiming herself to be the wife of the deceased employee. In view of the said objection, the respondent authorities directed petitioner No.1 to obtain a succession certificate from the competent Civil Court. Accordingly, petitioner No.1 filed a declaration and succession suit before the Civil Judge, Manendragarh, registered as Civil Case No. 1-A/2001, which was allowed in her favour on 31.07.2002. The appeal preferred by Shyam Kumari before the Additional District Judge and the second appeal before this Hon’ble High Court were also dismissed, thereby finally affirming the status of petitioner No.1 as the sole legally entitled widow of the deceased employee.

¶31

4. Despite the final adjudication of her rights, the respondent authorities failed to grant pension, compassionate appointment, or any other monetary benefits, citing pendency of litigation. During this prolonged delay, petitioner No.1 submitted multiple representations between the years 2006 to 2017 seeking pension, compassionate appointment, and alternative monetary compensation under the NCWA Rules, but without any positive outcome.

¶32

4

¶33

5. The respondent authorities themselves admitted, vide letter dated 28.08.2017, that due to pendency of litigation between petitioner No.1 and Shyam Kumari, substantial delay occurred, resulting in petitioner No.1 becoming over-aged for compassionate appointment, and that she was consequently entitled to monthly monetary compensation up to the age of 60 years. However, no such compensation was released. Subsequently, vide letter dated 03.01.2022, the respondents reiterated that although petitioner No.1 had crossed the permissible age limit for compassionate appointment, she was entitled to monetary compensation of ₹26,292.97/- per month, yet the same has still not been paid.

¶34

6. It is thus evident that the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment promptly in the year 1999, and the delay attributable solely to the respondents and intervening litigation cannot be used to defeat her legitimate rights. Till date, neither pension nor monetary compensation has been paid, thereby causing grave hardship and injustice to the petitioner and her dependent daughter.

¶35

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have committed a grave and patent illegality in not providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner or, in the alternative, to her eligible daughter. The petitioner had acted with utmost diligence and had promptly submitted her application for compassionate appointment in the year 1999 immediately after

¶36

5

¶37

the death of the deceased employee. There is absolutely no delay attributable to the petitioner. On the contrary, the respondent authorities kept the claim undecided for years under the pretext of pendency of litigation, despite the petitioner having ultimately succeeded before the Civil Court as well as before this Hon’ble Court in establishing her lawful status as the widow of the deceased employee. The prolonged delay has been caused solely due to the inaction and apathy of the respondent authorities and cannot be used as a ground to defeat the petitioner’s legitimate claim.

¶38

8. It is further submitted that the conduct of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as neither compassionate appointment nor pension nor monetary compensation has been released in favour of the petitioner, despite repeated representations over several years. The petitioner, along with her two dependent daughters, has suffered severe financial hardship and mental distress due to the irresponsible and unfair approach adopted by the respondent authorities. Even after unequivocally admitting that the petitioner is entitled to monthly monetary compensation of ₹26,292.97/- up to the age of 60 years in terms of the NCWA Rules, the respondent authorities have failed to release the said amount, thereby unlawfully depriving the petitioner of her accrued and enforceable rights.

¶39

6

¶40

9. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had taken immediate and bona fide steps after the death of her husband, not only by approaching the respondent authorities through timely representations, but also by securing a declaration and succession decree from the competent Civil Court, which has attained finality. From the year 1999 onwards, the petitioner has continuously pursued her claim for compassionate appointment, pension and monetary compensation; however, the respondent authorities have rejected the same on a wholly false and untenable ground of delay, even though such delay was occasioned entirely due to their own inaction. The NCWA Rules have been framed with the very object of providing social security and financial protection to the family members of employees who die in harness, and the denial of benefits defeats the purpose and spirit of the settlement.

¶41

10. Lastly, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohan Mahto v. Central Coalfields Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 549, wherein it has been categorically held that the NCWA is a binding settlement on both parties and that Coal India Limited, being a public sector undertaking, falls within the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution and is required to act fairly, reasonably and in a bona fide manner. The arbitrary refusal to grant benefits to the petitioner, despite clear entitlement under the NCWA Rules and admission by the respondent authorities

¶42

7

¶43

themselves, is therefore illegal, unjustified and liable to be set aside by this Court.

¶44

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the claim for compassionate appointment suffers from gross delay and laches, as the application was allegedly pursued after a considerable lapse of time i.e. after 19 years from the date of death of the deceased employee. It is contended that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and can be granted only in strict accordance with the provisions of the NCWA Rules in force at the relevant time. Learned counsel further submits that due to prolonged litigation regarding the status of the lawful wife of the deceased employee, the respondent authorities were justified in withholding the benefits, and by the time the dispute attained finality, the petitioner had crossed the prescribed age limit for compassionate appointment.

¶45

12. It is further submitted that since the petitioner had become overaged, her case for compassionate appointment could not be considered. The respondent authorities have, therefore, acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the NCWA Rules. Learned counsel for the respondents denies any allegation of arbitrariness or discrimination and submits that the petitioner’s representations were duly considered and processed in accordance with the applicable rules and administrative feasibility.

¶46

8

¶47

It is further contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief beyond what is permissible under the governing settlement. He further submits that, insofar as monetary compensation is concerned, the same has already been duly communicated to the petitioners and paid in accordance with law.

¶48

13. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record placed before this Court, including the annexures filed along with the writ petition.

¶49

14. The undisputed facts are that the husband of Petitioner No.1, namely Jagdhari, was a General Category employee under the respondent authorities and tragically died in harness on 11.12.1998 while in active service. Immediately thereafter, Petitioner No.1, being the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment and release of retiral benefits.

¶50

15. The record further reveals that during the pendency of the claim, an objection was raised by one Shyam Kumari, alleging herself to be the wife of the deceased. On the directions of the respondent authorities, Petitioner No.1 filed a declaration and succession suit before the Civil Judge, Manendragarh (Civil Case No. 1-A/2001), which was allowed in her favour. Subsequent appeals by the objector were dismissed, thereby conclusively establishing the legal status of Petitioner No.1 as the sole widow entitled to the benefits of her deceased husband.

¶51

9

¶52

16. Despite the final adjudication in her favour, the respondents failed to grant pension, compassionate appointment, or any alternative monetary benefits. Multiple representations made by the petitioner between 2006 and 2017 remained unheeded. The respondents themselves, vide letter dated 28.08.2017, admitted that due to the pendency of litigation, substantial delay occurred, resulting in the petitioner becoming over-aged for compassionate appointment. It was further admitted that she was entitled to monthly monetary compensation of ₹26,292.97/- up to the age of 60 years, yet such compensation was never released. Even in subsequent correspondence dated 03.01.2022, the respondents reaffirmed the petitioner’s entitlement, but payment was not made.

¶53

17. Learned counsel for the petitioners has convincingly argued that the delay in processing the claim was entirely attributable to the respondents and the intervening litigation, and that the petitioner had diligently pursued her claim from 1999 onwards. It is evident that the prolonged delay cannot be used to defeat the petitioner’s legitimate claim, especially when the petitioner acted promptly and in good faith to secure her rights, including obtaining a declaration and succession decree from the competent Civil Court.

¶54

18. The petitioner’s grievance, therefore, is founded on a genuine claim of entitlement under the NCWA Rules, and the conduct of the respondents in failing to release pension, compassionate

¶55

10

¶56

appointment, or monetary compensation, despite acknowledgment of the petitioner’s entitlement, reflects arbitrary and unfair administrative action. This conduct, as argued by the petitioner, constitutes a violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶57

19. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner had become over-aged and that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. It is also submitted that the respondents acted in accordance with administrative feasibility and in compliance with the NCWA Rules. While it is true that compassionate appointment is not an absolute right, it is equally clear that the respondents themselves have admitted the petitioner’s entitlement to monetary compensation, which has still not been released.

¶58

20. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to relief, not by way of compassionate appointment due to her over-aged status, but in the form of the monetary compensation admitted by the respondents. The delay in releasing the same is inexcusable and has caused undue hardship to the petitioner and her dependent daughters.

¶59

21. Considering the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has been deprived of her lawful entitlements for an unreasonably long period due to inaction and delay on the part of the respondents. While compassionate

¶60

11

¶61

appointment cannot be granted to the petitioner in view of her over-aged status, the respondents are directed to release the monthly monetary compensation from the date of filing of an application before the respondent authorities within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶62

22. No further relief is permissible beyond what is provided under the NCWA Rules.

¶63

23. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶64

Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶65

Yogesh

Siyawati v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siyawati v. South Eastern Coalfields 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

Narayan Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rosan Giri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Balkeshwar Kujur Vs Silas Sai

Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Copany Ltd. Raipur Vs Smt. Janki Bai Sahu

Chaitram Markam Vs Union of India

Satish Kumar Agrawal Vs Smt. Seema Gidodiya