Chattisgarh High Court
Sunita Singh vs Coal India Ltd on 18 August, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 4513 of 2022
1 - Sunita Singh D/o Late Shri Lal Ji Singh Aged About 37 Years On The Date Of
Application (01/06/1984) Years, Lt. Father Posted As Bhu Tramer, West
Jhagrakhand Colliery, Hasdev Area S.E.C.L. West Jhagrakhand Colliery, R/o
Ward No. 07, Line Dafai, Village Khongpani, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya
Chhattisgarh Pin 497442, Mobile No. 9336262966., District : Koriya
(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Coal India Ltd Through Its Chairman 10 Netaji Subhash Road Calcutta (West
Bengal)
2 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat
Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
3 - Area General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdev Area,
District Koria Chhattisgarh.
4 - Sub Area Manager In The Office Of The Dgm (M) Jhagrakhand Sub Area,
Hasdev Area, West Jharkhand Colliery South Eastern Coalfields Limited, District
Koria Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate
For respondents : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
18.08.2025
1. Heard.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
"10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be called the entire
record of the present petitioner from the respondent
department for compassionate appointment.
10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be set-aside the
impugned order dated 18/12/2021 Annexure P/12 and directed
to respondent department to consider for compassionate
appointment.
10.3 That the respondent's i.e., the respondents and the R/3 &
R/4 be directed to consider and allowed the petitioner case for
compassionate appointment.
10.4 Cost of the petition be allowed.
10.5 Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioner
which this Hon'ble court feels fit in the facts and circumstances
of the case."
3. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner was
working on the post of 'Trammer' under the respondents, and he died in
harness on 26.04.2015. An application for dependent employment was
moved by the petitioner on 16.10.2021, and it was rejected by the Colliery
Manager vide order dated 18.11.2021 on the ground that the petitioner was
more than 35 years of age on the date of consideration.
4. Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would
submit that initially, a civil suit claiming therein succession certificate was
filed by the brother of the petitioner, and it was decreed vide judgment and
decree dated 06.01.2017, and thereafter, the petitioner moved an
application for dependent employment on 16.10.2021. He would further
submit that when the civil suit was filed, the age of the petitioner was 35
years, and the said date should have been taken into consideration by the
respondent authorities while considering the application of the petitioner for
dependent employment. He would contend that, according to the National
Coal Wages Agreement-VI (for short 'the NCWA'), the petitioner is entitled
to be considered for a dependent's employment up to the age of 45 years,
as she is the daughter of the deceased employee. He would pray to quash
the order dated 18.11.2021 issued by the Colliery Manager.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Vijay K.
Deshmukh. He would submit that Clause 9.3.2 of the NCWA deals with the
employment of one dependent of the worker who dies while in service, and
Clause 9.3.4 of the NCWA deals with the criteria for consideration. He
would further submit that the age limit of a candidate for dependent
employment has specifically been prescribed under Clause 9.3.4 of the
NCWA, and the maximum age has been fixed as 35 years for dependents
other than the spouse. He would also contend that for a female spouse, the
maximum prescribed age is 45 years. He would further contend that the
petitioner is the daughter of the deceased employee; therefore, she would
not come within the purview of Clause 9.3.4 of NCWA. He would submit
that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
documents placed on the record.
7. To consider the right of the petitioner under Chapter-IX 'Social Security'
under NCWA-VI, I find it appropriate to extract relevant Clauses of Chapter-
IX under NCWA-VI, which is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"9.3.2 Employment to one dependent of the worker who
dies while in service
In so far as female dependents are concerned, their
employment/payment of monetary compensation
governed by para 9.5.0." would be
"9.3.4 the dependents to be considered for employment
should be physically fit and suitable for employment and
aged not 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 male spouse is
concemed, there would be no age limit regarding
provision of employment."
8. From a bare perusal of the aforementioned two Clauses for employment to
one dependent of an employee, the female dependents have been held
entitled to the employment or, in alternative, payment of monetary
compensation as per Clause 9.5.0. The age for considering a candidate for
dependent employment has been specifically prescribed under Clause
9.3.4. The maximum age has been fixed to be 35 years for dependents
other than spouse. For a female spouse, the maximum age is prescribed
as 45 years. The petitioner is claiming her right for dependent employment
under Chapter-IX of NCWA-VI, but she would be entitled for consideration
up to the age of 35 years according to the above quoted provisions.
9. Admittedly, on 18.11.2021, the age of the petitioner was 37 years, 4
months, and 15 days; therefore, in my opinion, the respondent authorities
have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for the dependent
employment. Thus, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
