Jai Prakash Vs Union of India

1 - Union Of India Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited , Seepat Road, Sarkanda , Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - The General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Baikunthpur , District Korea Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - The Deputy Chief Personnel Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited , Baikunthpur , District Korea Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - The Personnel Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Churcha Colliery, Baikunthpur , District Korea Chhattisgarh.

¶14

5 - Sub Area Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited , Churcha Colliery Baikunthpur , District Korea Chhattisgarh.

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. SanjayKumar Yadav,Advocate
For U.O.I.	: Mr. Ramakant Mishra,DeputySolicitor General
For S.E.C.L.	: Mr. PankajSingh,Advocate

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

17/04/2026

2

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief:-

¶22

“10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court.

¶23

10.2. That the Hon'ble Court may pleased to direct to respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the basis of humanitarian grounds.

¶24

10.3. That the Hon'ble Court may pleased to quash/set aside the impugned order (Annexure P-1) and direct the respondent authorities to extend the employment to the petitioner (dependent) with all consequential benefits.

¶25

10.4. That the Hon'ble Court may pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the age of petitioner which is confirmed as in Mark sheet on 01/10/1975.

¶26

10.5. Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner. ”

¶27

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner, who was working as a Belt Operator in the Class IV category in Churcha Colliery of SECL, District Korea, died in harness on 11.12.2009. He would further submit that the petitioner made an application for grant of dependent appointment, which has been rejected by the respondent authorities on the ground that, on the date of consideration, he was more than 35 years of age and, therefore, not eligible for appointment according to the conditions enumerated in the National Coal Wage Agreement.

¶28

He would contend that an inquiry was conducted by the SECL authorities, and a letter was sent to the District Education Officer,

¶29

3

¶30

whereby the District Education Officer informed the authorities that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.10.1975; thus, on the date of consideration, the age of the petitioner was below 35 years, and the respondent authorities committed an error of fact while rejecting the application moved by the petitioner for dependent employment.

¶31

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/SECL would submit that in the impugned order there is a reference to a letter dated 23.01.2019 issued by the District Education Officer, wherein the date of birth was recorded as 01.10.1972, but the said document has not been placed on record. He would contend that there is a dispute with regard to the actual date of birth of the petitioner; therefore, the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for dependent employment.

¶32

4. Heard.

¶33

5. Vide order dated 02.04.2026, one week’s time was granted to the learned advocate appearing for SECL to submit a response with regard to the letter dated 03.11.2018 (Annexure P-10), which was issued by the District Education Officer to the SECL authorities, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 01.10.1975. In response, no document has been placed on record except self serving statement.

¶34

6. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, particularly the fact that an inquiry was conducted by the District Education Officer on a letter forwarded by the SECL authorities, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 01.10.1975, in my opinion, the SECL authorities have committed an error of law while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for dependent employment. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 15.02.2019 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed .

¶35

4

¶36

7. The respondents/SECL authorities are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶37

8. In the result, the petition is allowed . No order as to cost.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Nadim

Jai Prakash v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malaram Vs Sukhram

Kheduram Yadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sushila Bai Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Honey Lalwani Vs Hidayatullah National Law University

Seema Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anju Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh