[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sumitra Bhagat vs South Eastern Coal Field Limited on 20 March, 2026
1
NAFR
NIRMALA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAO
WPS No. 784 of 2021
1 - Sumitra Bhagat D/o Late Larangu Ram Bhagat Aged About 33 Years R/o House
No. M - 1021, Adarsh Nagar Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba
Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - South Eastern Coal Field Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director,
South Eastern Coal Field Limited, Headquarters, Seepat Road Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - General Manager South Eastern Coal Field Limited, Headquarters, Seepat Road
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3 - General Manager South Eastern Coal Field Limited, Kusmunda Area, District
Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
4 - Regional Manager South Eastern Coal Field Limited, Kusmunda Project,
Kusmunda Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner/s : Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
20.03.2026
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for
the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the
possession of respondents for its kind perusal.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside
the impugned order dated 30.11.2020 issued by the respondent
no.3 i.e. General Manager, South Eastern Coal Field Limited,
Kusmunda Area, District Korba (C.G.) and pleased to direct the
respondents to consider and grant the appointment to the
petitioner on compassionate basis.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any
other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble
Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the
case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner."
2. The facts, in brief, are that the elder brother of the petitioner, namely
Suresh Kumar Bhagat was working as EPGH Category-I at Kusmunda
Project, Kusmunda area, District Korba under the respondents. He
died in harness on 7.2.2018 leaving behind his wife, children, mother
and sisters. The wife of the deceased moved an application on
6.4.2018 seeking compassionate appointment for the sister of the
deceased. Thereafter, Writ Petition (S) No.3159 of 2020 was filed by
the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to decide the
pending application. The said writ petition was disposed of on
14.8.2020, wherein a direction was issued to the SECL authorities to
decide the pending application within a period of four months. The
respondent authorities, however, rejected the application on
30.11.2020, inter alia on the ground that according to National Coal
Wage Agreement (NCWA), the sister of the deceased does not fall
within the category of the dependents.
3. Shri S.R.J. Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the respondent authorities have misconstrued the clause
9.3.3 of NCWA-X. He would contend that wife of the deceased herself
moved an application for dependent employment on behalf of the
petitioner as she was not in position to seek sucyh employment for
herself. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in WP No. 15841 of 2021,
parties being Shakila Begum (Siddiqui) and Another vs. Northern
Coalfields Limited and Others, wherein it is held that according to
clause 9.3.3 of NCWA, the sister of an unmarried employee who was
fully dependent upon him would entitled to be considered for
appointment on compassionate ground. He would pray to allow this
petition.
4. On the other hand, Shri Atul Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the
respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioner. He would refer clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-X, which states that a
dependent for this purpose means the wife/ husband as the case may
be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son and if no such
direct dependent is available for employment, brother, widowed
daughter/ widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the
deceased and almost wholly dependent on the earnings of the
deceased may be considered. He would submit that a sister is not
included within the category of dependents under Chapter IX of
NCWA-X. He would contend that the wife of the deceased never
approached the respondent authorities claiming therein dependent
employment and the application moved by the sister was not
maintainable, therefore, the respondent authorities have rightly
rejected the application.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents present on record.
6. Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA, reads as under:
"9.3.3. The dependent for this purpose means the wife/
husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and
legally adopted son. Is no such direct dependent is available
for employment, brother, widowed daughter/ widowed
daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and
almost wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased
may be considered to be the dependent of the deceased."
7. In the present case, brother of the petitioner, who was SECL employee,
died in harness on 7.2.2018. An application was moved by the wife of
the deceased on behalf of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that
the wife of the deceased never approached the respondent authorities
claiming therein dependent employment.
8. A perusal of clause 9.3.3 of NCWA would make it clear that sister would
not come within the definition of a dependent when the wife and
children are alive. In the matter of Shakila Begum (supra), the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh directed the respondent authorities to
consider the claim of sister of the deceased employee as unmarried
employee died leaving behind his sister alone and therefore, it was
observed that as she was fully dependent upon the income of the
deceased, he would be entitled to be considered for appointment on
compassionate grounds. In the present case, the deceased was not a
bachelor rather he is survived by his wife and children. As per clause
9.3.3, a sister does not fall within the category of the dependents, and
also the direct dependents of the deceased are still alive and the
petitioner failed to establish that she was dependent on the earnings of
the deceased. Therefore, in my opinion, the respondent authorities
have rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner. Thus, I do
not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, this
petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi
