Chattisgarh High Court
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Smt. Shobha Parida on 21 October, 2022
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.A.No. 240 of 2022
Judgment reserved on 10.10.2022
Judgment Pronounced on 21.10.2022
(Arising out of Order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the Single Bench of
this High Court, in Writ Petition (S) No.6578 of 2021)
1. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum
Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited.
Headquarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
2. General Manager (Personnel/MP), South Eastern Coalfields
Limited, Headquarter, Seepat Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
3. General Manager/Sub Area Manager, Charcha Mine, RO, South
Eastern Coalfields Limited, Headquarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
4. Deputy Manager (Personnel), Charcha Mine, RO South Eastern
Coalfields Limited, PO. Charcha Colliery, District Koriya
Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellants/Respondents
Versus
1. Smt. Shobha Parida W/o Late Sh. Kampo Aged About 53 Years
Castge Banayat, R/o Subhash Nagar, Charcha, Tehsil
Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh.
2. Smt. Narmada Parida, D/o Kampo Aged About 33 Years, Caste
Banayat, R/o Subhash Nagar, Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur,
District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Vishal Bhatnagar, Mr. Vinod Deshmukh
Ms. Lata Walia and Ms. Ishu Manaksiya,
Advocates
For Respondents : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate.
Coram: Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal
C.A.V. Judgment
Per Sanjay Agrawal, J.
1. The Respondents - South Eastern Coal Fields Limited and
others (hereinafter referred to as the S.E.C.L.) preferred this appeal
under Section 2 (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to the
Division Bench) Act, 2006, questioning the legality and propriety of the
order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(S)
No.6578 of 2021, whereby the claim of the Writ Petitioners has been
allowed entitling Petitioner No.2 - Smt. Narmada Parida to be appointed
as dependent employment on account of sad demise of her father, the
employee of the Appellants - S.E.C.L. The parties shall be referred
hereinafter as per their descriptions mentioned before the Court of
learned Single Judge.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Kampo,
predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners, who was the employee of
S.E.C.L., has died in harness on 14.04.2021. On account of his sad
demise, Petitioner No.1, Smt. Shobha Parida, being his widow, had
applied for dependent employment for her son, namely, Krishna
Chandra Parida, as per the terms provided in clause 9.3.3 of the
National Coal Wage Agreement (for short, the N.C.W.A.), on
12.05.2021. The said application was, however, rejected on 16.05.2021
holding her son to be over-aged. Immediately thereafter, i.e., on
19.05.2021, she approached the S.E.C.L. authorities for employment of
her married daughter - Smt. Narmada Parida, Petitioner No.2 herein,
as dependent employment. Further contention of the petitioners is that
when her claim was not considered, they have been compelled to file
the petition before this Court seeking issuance of direction against the
authorities of S.E.C.L. for consideration of their application so made in
this aspect on 19.05.2021.
3. In reply to the aforesaid claim, it was stated by the Respondents
- S.E.C.L. that the alleged application of the Petitioners are under
consideration and appropriate decision will be taken after examining the
dependency part of Petitioner No.2 as to whether she was wholly
dependent upon the earning of her deceased father or not as required
under the provisions prescribed under said N.C.W.A. It is contended
further that in order to consider her dependency, a request was made to
Petitioner No.1 vide its letter dated 10.06.2021 requesting her for
submission of the certificate of the Sub-Divisional Officer or Tahsildar,
Baikunthpur, District Koriya in this regard so as to decide her claim as
made.
4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials placed
on record, based upon the principles laid down by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Asha Pandey vs. Coal India
Limited passed in W.P.(S) No.4994/2015 on 15.03.2016, which was
affirmed further by the Division Bench of this Court on 03.09.2019 in
Writ Appeal No.246/2016 as well as by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
S.L.P. (Civil) Diary No. 238/2020 decided on 31.01.2020, arrived at a
conclusion that Petitioner No.2, being a married daughter, is also
entitled for dependent employment in terms of clause 9.3.3 of N.C.W.A.
and, it was held further that being a married daughter, she would come
within the purview of direct dependent as specified in the said clause
and no enquiry is, therefore, needed for in order to consider her
dependency part as alleged by the Appellants/S.E.C.L. In consequence,
the authorities of S.E.C.L. are directed to consider and decide the case
of Petitioner No.2 for her appointment as a dependent employment in
terms of clause 9.3.3 of N.C.W.A. within a period of 30 days from the
date of receipt of a copy of the order while imposing cost of Rs.10,000/-
payable to the Writ Petitioners.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants - S.E.C.L., while
referring to clause 9.3.3 of N.C.W.A., submits that the finding of the
learned Single Judge holding that Petitioner No.2 - Smt. Narmada
Parida, being a married daughter of deceased employee, would fall
within the first category, i.e., "direct dependent", as specified in the said
clause, is apparently contrary to law. According to him, though the said
Petitioner, being a married daughter, is entitled to be considered for her
appointment as such, but her appointment would be subject to
fulfillment of other conditions as specified therein as her claim would fall
within the second category, i.e., "indirect dependent". In support,
learned counsel appearing for the Appellants - S.E.C.L. has placed his
reliance upon a decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in the matter of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Holding
Company Limited and another vs. Chandrani Sinha decided on
21.11.2016 in W.A.No.525 of 2016
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Writ
Petitioners, while placing his reliance upon the decision rendered in the
matter of Smt. Asha Pandey vs. Coal India Limited and others
(supra), has supported the order impugned as passed by the learned
Single Judge.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
entire record carefully.
8. The main question, which arises for determination in this appeal,
is as to,
whether the claim of married daughter would fall in the first
category, i.e., "direct dependent" as specified in clause 9.3.3
of N.C.W.A. and / or, whether enquiry pertaining to her claim
is required to be made for consideration of her employment
as specified in second part , i.e., "indirect dependent" of said
clause of N.C.W.A?
9. In order to determine the aforesaid question, it is necessary to
examine the said clause, i.e., clause 9.3.3 of N.C.W.A., which provides
as under :-
"9.3.3 the dependant for this purpose means the
wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried
daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such
direct dependant is available for employment, brother,
widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-
in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly
dependant on the earnings of the deceased may be
considered to be the dependant of the deceased."
10. The aforesaid clause appears to be in two parts, first part relates
to "direct dependents" in which, "unmarried daughter, son and legally
adopted son" would come, while second part relates to "indirect
dependent", wherein "brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-
law or son-in-law" would fall. A close scrutiny of the said clause would
show that if the persons fall in second category, then the enquiry as to
whether he or she was wholly dependent upon the earnings of the
deceased S.E.C.L. employee or not is required to be made, whereas it
is not required to be made if he or she falls in first part of the said
clause.
11. Perusal of the terms and conditions stipulated in the said
N.C.W.A., it appears that no clause is prescribed therein which prohibits
the applicant for moving another application for appointment of other
members of the family after the rejection of earlier application. It,
therefore, appears that the widow of the deceased employee, after the
rejection of her claim for appointment of her son on 16.05.2021, has
made another application immediately thereafter, i.e., on 19.05.2021
seeking this time for the appointment of her married daughter and, by
virtue of the order impugned, it was held that the case of the married
daughter would fall in first category of said clause and no enquiry
pertaining to her dependency upon her father is, therefore, needed for
and, while arriving at such a conclusion, the learned Single Judge has
placed his reliance upon the principles laid down by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Asha Pandey (supra).
12. However, a close scrutiny of the said judgment would show that
the issue involved therein was only with regard to the fact as to whether
the exclusion of married daughter for her appointment as a dependent
employment under the said clause was justified or not and, upon due
consideration, it was held that the exclusion of married daughter is
unreasonable and in violation of the provisions prescribed under
Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. While arriving at such a
conclusion, it was accordingly directed that the aforesaid clause read
with clause 9.4.0 of N.C.W.A-IX be read in the manner to include the
married daughter as one of the eligibles, subject to fulfillment of other
conditions mentioned therein.
13. What is, therefore, reflected from the principles laid down therein
that the married daughter of the deceased employee would also be
entitled to be taken into consideration for her appointment as such in
terms of the said clause, but that would be subject to fulfillment of other
conditions as prescribed therein, as reflected from para - 29, which
reads as under :-
"(29) ................. Resultantly, impugned order dated
15.10.2015 Annexure P-1 rejecting the petitioner's claim
for dependent employment on the ground of her
marriage is hereby quashed being unsustainable in law
and it is directed that Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-VI read
with clause 9.4.0 of NCWA-IX be read in the manner to
include the married daughter also as one of the eligibles
subject to fulfillment of other conditions. ....................."
14. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment would show that it nowhere
said that the married daughter would fall under the category of first part
of the said clause, therefore, no enquiry pertaining to her dependency
upon the deceased employee is needed for.
15. However, the learned Single Judge has held that by declaration
of law laid down in Smt. Asha Pandey (supra), married daughter being
at par with the unmarried daughter would also be entitled to dependent
employment and, thus, would be direct dependent of the deceased
employee. It is to be noted here at this juncture that the "daughters,"
like "unmarried daughter" and "widowed daughter" as depicted in the
said clause are placed in different parts, as "unmarried daughter" falls in
first part, while "widowed daughter" in the category of second part. It,
thus, appears that for the consideration of an appointment of "widowed
daughter" in terms of said clause, an enquiry is to be conducted as to
whether she is wholly dependent upon her father or not, while no
enquiry as such is required to be made in case of consideration for the
said purpose for the "unmarried daughter" as she falls in first part of the
said clause. It could, thus, be visualized that for consideration of
"married daughter", her claim could not be held to be preferential or
better to that of the "widowed daughter" as nobody is there to look after
the interest of her (widowed daughter) upon the death of her husband,
but the same would not be the position for a "married daughter" as her
interest could very well be safeguarded by her husband. These
aspects of the matter were not considered by the learned Single Judge.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the claim of the married daughter
would fall into the second part of the said clause, like the "widowed
daughter". As such, before providing an appointment as a "dependent
employment" to the "married daughter", an enquiry is needed for.
16. The aforesaid observation is fortified by the principles laid down
by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Chhattisgarh State
Electricity Holding Company Limited and another vs. Chandrani
Sinha decided on 21.11.2016 in W.A.No.525 of 2016, wherein, while
considering the case of a married daughter, it has been observed that
there is no reason why a married daughter should be denied the benefit
of compassionate appointment, if she is otherwise entitled to, as per the
scheme.
17. In view of the above discussion, it is thus evident that an enquiry
is needed for with regard to the dependency part of a married daughter
as per the scheme of the employer, i.e., S.E.C.L. We are, therefore, of
the considered opinion that the finding of the learned Single Judge
holding the married daughter to be the category of first part of said
clause deserves to be and is hereby set aside.
18. Consequently, the order impugned passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6578 of 2021 is hereby set aside and, the matter
is remitted to the concerned Authorities of S.E.C.L. with a direction to
decide the claim of the Writ Petitioners in terms of clause 9.3.3 of
N.C.W.A. as soon as possible preferably within the period of 45 days
from the date of receiving the certified copy of this judgment/order as
the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners has passed away on
14.04.2021.
19. With the aforesaid direction, the writ appeal is allowed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Sanjay Agrawal)
Chief Justice Judge
Anjani
