Chattisgarh High Court
Pyare Lal vs South Eastern Coalfield Ltd on 7 February, 2022
1
(Proceeding through Video Conferencing)
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 63 of 2022
Pyare Lal S/o Late Shri Moti Lal, Aged About 33 Years R/o Kapur Singh
Dafai Ali Furniture Area, Ward-23, Village Chirmiri, P.S. Chirmiri Tahsil
Khadgavan, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. South Eastern Coalfield Ltd Through Its Chairman Cum Managing
Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
2. Area Personal Manager, SECL, SECL, Chirmiri Area, Malaviya
Nagar, G.M. Complex Pondi Chirmiri, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh.
3. Assistant Personnal Manager, Chirmiri (U/G) Colliery, District Koriya
Chhattisgarh.
4. Sub-Area Manager, SECL, West Chirmiri (U/G) Colliery, Chirmiri,
District Koriya, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
__________________________________________________________
For Appellant : Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate
__________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
07.02.2022
Heard Mr. Waquar Naiyer, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 29.09.2021 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.5055 of 2021
dismissing the writ petition.
3. Father of the appellant was working as Electrical Fitter Cat-V at
Underground Bartunga Colliery, Chirimiri and he died-in-harness on
09.12.2020. Consequent upon his death, the appellant's mother applied
for compassionate appointment in respect of the appellant by an
application dated 26.06.2021. The said application was rejected by an
order dated 09.08.2021 on the ground that the appellant was more than
35 years of age, which is the maximum age for which compassionate
appointment for dependent is permissible. The aforesaid order was put to
challenge by filing the writ petition, out of which, this appeal arises.
4. The appellant claimed in the writ petition that his date of birth is
20.08.1987 on the basis of a birth certificate issued by the Registrar (Birth
& Death), Municipal Corporation, Chirmiri, a Voter I.D. Card as well as an
Aadhar Card.
5. A perusal of the birth certificate (Annexure-P/4) goes to show that
the same was issued on 08.02.2021. Voter I.D. Card was issued on
22.02.2021. So far as Aadhar Chad is concerned, the same was issued
on 29.12.2020. All these documents are issued subsequent to the death
of father of the appellant and therefore, no reliance can be placed on
these documents.
6. Clause 9.3.4 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (for short,
'NCWA') provides for compassionate appointment, which reads as
follows:
"9.3.4 - The dependent to be considered for
employment should be physically fit and suitable for
employment and aged not be more than 35 years
provided that the age limit in case of employment of
female spouse would be 45 years as given in Clause
9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there
would be no age limit regarding provision of
employment."
7. Evidently, the appellant is claiming compassionate appointment
based on the aforesaid NCWA. The father of the appellant declared date
of birth of the appellant as 20.08.1985 in Form PS-3, which was filled up
under the provisions of Coal Mine Family Pension Scheme, 1988 and on
that basis, the age of the appellant turns out to be 35 years and 4 months
on 09.12.2020. In the service extract filled up on 30.11.1990 under the
NCWA, the father of the appellant stated that the appellant was aged
about 6 years. If that information is taken into account, the age of the
appellant works out as 36 years and 01 month at the time of death of the
father. Either way, going by declaration made by the father of the
appellant, age of the appellant was more than 35 years at the time of
death of the father of the appellant.
8. It is recorded by the learned Single Judge that during pendency of
the writ petition, mother of the appellant had filed an application before
the authorities for providing employment to her younger son, who is still
having the requisite age for compassionate appointment. In the appeal,
the appellant has acknowledged that his mother has filed an application
on behalf of his brother. However, Mr. Naiyer has submitted that
subsequently the mother of the appellant has again filed an application
for his appointment on compassionate ground.
9. Be that as it may.
10. On due consideration, we find no good ground to interfere with the
order of the learned Single Judge and consequently, the appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (N.K Chandravanshi)
Chief Justice Judge
Chandra
