Disposed¶40

Manoj Kumar v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Chhattisgarh HC12 May 2026WPS/6691/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dependent employment / compassionate appointment dispute under the National Coal Wage Agreement before SECL; petitioner's 2023 application stalled over the missing consent of his brother (Respondent No. 5), who claimed compassionate appointment from 2016; Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of WPS No. 6691 of 2024 directing SECL to decide both applications on merits within 50 days; no opinion expressed on merits; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Direction to SECL to consider the applications of the petitioner and Respondent No. 5 in accordance with law, strictly as per extant rules, on their own merits, within 50 days; petition disposed of without expression of opinion on merits. ¶40

Manoj Kumar Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

2026:CGHC:22636

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 6691 of 2024

¶6

Manoj Kumar S/o Late Shri Ramlal Aged About 31 Years R/o Pamgarh, Near Jagam Talab, Angel Beauty Parlour, P.S. And Post - Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶7

Digitally signed bySHOAIB SHOAIB ANWAR ANWAR Date: 2026.05.13 17:29:12 +0530

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Chairman-CumManaging Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Korba Area, P.O. Korba Colliery, District Korba (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Sub Area Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Surakachhar-Balgi Sub Area, Korba Area, District Korba (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Manager (Personnel) Surakachhar 3/4 Incline, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Surakachhar-Balgi Sub Area, Korba Area, District Korba (C.G.)

¶14

¶15

5 - Rajkumar S/o Late Ramlal Aged About 41 Years R/o Gajara Side, Q. No. 103/1, Bankimongara, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

(Cause title taken from CIS)

¶18

For Petitioner(s)	: Shri Chandresh Shrivastava,Advocate
For Respondents/SECL	: Shri Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate
For Respondent No. 5	: Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Senior
	Advocate along with Shri Anumeh
	Shrivastava,Advocate

¶19

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

13.05.2026

¶22

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶23

"10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioners.

¶24

10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Company to consider the application of petitioner and provide employment to him as per the National Coal Wage Agreement.

¶25

10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the respondent authorities to issue appointment order in favour of petitioner as already all the formalities have been completed

¶26

¶27

without insisting for the consent of respondent no.5.

¶28

10.4. The Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the respondent company to pay compensation to the petitioner for illegally and unnecessarily depriving the petitioner of his rights.

¶29

10.5. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioners including the cost of the petition."

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

¶31

applied for dependent employment on 29.07.2023 after the death of his father namely; Ram Lal, who died in harness on 04.01.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Respondent/SECL is not considering the application for dependent employment filed by the petitioner on the ground that Respondent No. 5 Rajkumar, who happens to be the brother of the petitioner, is not willing to give consent to the application filed by the petitioner, though there is no provision in the scheme for dependent employment requiring the consent of all dependent family members.

¶32

Learned counsel for the SECL submits that, though the

¶33

application has been filed by the petitioner, the same is not

¶34

¶35

being considered as the petitioner has claimed himself to be a dependent of the deceased employee; hence, all the family members of the deceased employee are eligible to claim such employment, and therefore, the consent of all family members who can claim dependency is necessary. On this basis, the petitioner was asked to submit the consent of all family members. Though the petitioner submitted the consent of his two sisters, the consent of Respondent No. 5 has not been placed before the SECL.

¶36

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5 submits that immediately after the death of his father in the year 2016, Respondent No. 5 had also applied for compassionate appointment on 06.02.2016; however, the same has not been considered till date by the SECL. He further submits that, as both the petitioner and Respondent No. 5 are claiming to be dependents one having applied for dependent employment and the other having already applied for compassionate appointment,hence both cannot give consent vice-versa to their application. Hence, it is for the SECL to do the needful by deciding the applications filed by both parties. Therefore, the SECL may be directed to consider the claims of both parties in accordance with law.

¶37

¶38

I have heard all the parties and perused the record, as well as the replies filed by the SECL and Respondent No. 5.

¶39

Considering the fact that the petitioner has already moved an application for dependent employment, though the same has not been considered due to the non-submission of the consent letter of Respondent No. 5, and further considering that Respondent No. 5 has already applied for compassionate appointment and both applications are pending consideration before the SECL, the SECL is directed to consider the applications of the petitioner and the respondent No.5 in accordance with law and on its own merits within a period of 50 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order passed by this Court.

¶40

With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.

¶41

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and the SECL is directed to strictly consider and decide the applications as per the extant rules and on its own merits.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(BIBHU DATTA GURU)

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Shoaib

Manoj Kumar v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Ashwani Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Darshan Singh Keshkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anita Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Girdhar Chaturvedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Seeta Yadav Vs Kumudani

Sunita Sendare Vs Shri Mahadev Kavre