fc (l^^^l. SingSe Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. S\0-\ OF 2010. PETITIONERS <'.--'. .^^ ^^^ 'n RESPONDENTS Kumari Lalita Singh, D/o. late Shri Dilraj Singh, aged about 32 years, Kotlona Colliery, S.E.C.L. Baikunthpur Area, District Koria (C.G.) VERSUS :1. S.E.C.L. Through : It's Chairman -Cum- Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C. G.) 2. Chief General Manager, Baikunthpur Area, S.E.C.L. Koria, District Koria (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^\ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH. BILASPUR S.B : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. W.P. (Sl No.2184/2010 PETITIONER Kumari Lalita Singh RESPONDENTS Versus S.E.C.L. and another ORDER ^ POST_ON /^AUGUST, 2011 Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge .••••.^s'-'-w: .^"t" ,r^sf<<^ '/ ^^-^ w ^IS^^ l%ws?3y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR sn/ SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P. (Sl No.2184/2010 Kumari Lalita Singh Versus S.E.C.L. and another Petitlpn u/A 226 of the Constitution of India Apjiearance: Shri S.N. Prasad, counsel for the petitioner. Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Khare, counsel for fhe respondents. ORDER (Passed on /'? .08.2011) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the correctness and validity of orders dated 9.8.1999 and 27.7.2002 as also for issuance of a partici.dar direction to respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 2. Facts necessary for adjudication of controversy involved in this petition are that one Dilraj Singh, while working as Watahman at Katkona ColUery of S.E.C.L., died. As there existed a policy for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependent of deceased employee, the Personnel Manager, S.E.C.L. Baikunthpur area, vide his proposal dated 19.4.1999 forwarded the case of the petitioner for employment in place of her father / cn I, AL' 1 <'l'/'v:^...-'^ .y -2- under the policy contained in the National Coal Wage Agreement- V, dated 19th January, 1996. However, vide order dated 9.8.1999 (Annexure P-2), the proposal was rejected by recording that as the petitioner is residing with one Mohd. Shamim and two children are born out of such relation, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. Thereafter, a suit was filed by the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Baikunthpur, against Md. Shamim, registered as Civil Suit No. 39 A/01. A decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on 7th January, 2002 (Annexure P-3), by which, it was declared that the petitioner is daughter of late Dilraj Singh and she was also declared un- married. Thereafter, a legal notice was sent by fhe petitioner. The management required the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board for examination, to which, the petitioner refused. A writ petition was initially filed on behalf of the petitioner, registered as W.P. No.4007/03, by one Hari Yadav, Secretary of M.P. Koyla Majdur Sabha in representative capacity, espousing the cause of the petitioner. On 9.3.2006, an interim order was passed by the Court directing respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Thereafter, an order dated 30th June, 2006 was passed by the respondents, rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that after making an inquiry, it has been found that the petitioner has married one Mohd. Shamim and residing with him and she has two issues also,therefore, she is not entitled to employment as dependent, because the policy does not permit grant of employment to married daughter. The ^ -3- ,1 ;. \; "A - i'"' aforesaid writ petition was, however, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition in the name of the petitioner, vide order dated 30U1 July, 2009. Thereafter, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted fhat the denial of employment to the petitioner on the groiuid that she has married one Mohd. Shamim is illegal as respondents could not have rejected the claim once the order has been passed by the Civil Court in herfavour on 7.1.2002 in Civil Suit No. 39 A/01 and the declaration binds all including the respondents. 4. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondents, opposing the relief prayed for by the petitioner, submitted that the claim of the petitioner was duly inquired into and upon inquiry, it has been found that the petitioner has married one Mohd. Shamim and residing with him and two children are born out of the wedlock. Learned senior counsel for the respondents further submitted that though the respondents denied the status as unmarried daughter and rejected petitioner's claim for employment by communicating tp the petitioner that she is not entitied for employment, she being married daughter, yet the petitioner filed a collusive suit and obtained decree of declaration without impleading respondent-S.E.C.L. as party in the suit. Therefore, the said decree is not biding on respondents. It has also been urged by learned senior counsel that there is material on record to support the decision of the respondents that the ^ ^ ii -4- petitioner is a married daughter. He submits that in view of the claim made by the petitioner and denial by the respondents, seriously disputed question of fact are involved in the matter, which could not be gone into the writ petition. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. y? 6. It is not in dispute between fhe parties that under the scheme of providing employment to the dependent, in the case of death of an employee, the dependent of the employee are entitled to compassionate appointment. The only basis for denial of the claim of the petitioner by the respondents is that as the petitioner is married daughter of deceased -Dih-aj Singh, she is not entitled to emplo}Tnent. Vide memo dated 9.8.1999 (Annexure P-2), respondents informed the petitioner that as the petitioner is residing with Mohd. Shamim, she is not entitled to compassionate appointment. Later on, in compliance of interim order passed by this Court on 9.3.2006 in W.P. No.4007/03, the respondents have again passed an order on 30th June, 2006, in which, it has been stated that an inquiiy was got conducted through the police, in which, it has been informed that the petitioner is residing with her husband- Mohd. Shamim and two children and it has been found that Noorjahan and Lalita are one and the same and wife of Mohd. Shamim. From the judgment and decree passed in the civil suit, it is clear that the petitioner filed a suit as her claim for appointment was rejected by the S.E.C.L. on the ground that she - 5 - is a married daughter and married to one Mohd. Shamim. It is therefore clear that because of denial of status as un-niarried daughter, the petitioner filed a civil suit. However, the petitioner did not implead SECL as party in the suit and a collusive decree was obtained by filing a suit only against Mohd. Shamim, who did not contest the suit, resulting in, a judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner by the Civil Coiu-t. The respondents were not party to the suit, therefore, the said decree does not bind the respondents. / Please see Director of Technical Education and another Vs. K. Sitadevi (Smt.) (AIR 1991 SC 308)]. 7. Moreover, the deeision of the respondents is based on material and cannot be said to be wifhout any basis The respondents have placed on record the report of fhe Station House Officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claim of fhe petitioner has been rejected on certain assumption, without any basis. The decision, fherefore, cannot be termed as arbitrary. 8. The question as to whether the petitioner is un-married or not, in the light of specific denial made by the respondents and categoric assertion that she was married to Mohd. Shamim, is a seriously disputed question of fact between the parties, which cannot be gone into by this Court in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the petitioner to seek _, appropriate relief by approaching the civil Court and obtaining decree against the respondents, as the determination of the issue ;t .\ !A f ^ t. -6- requires oral evidence to be recorded and inquiry into seriously disputed question of fact to be made before such determination. 9. I also find that in the earlier round of litigation when this Court passed an order on 9.3.2006 in W.P. No.4007/03, the respondent passed an order on 30.6.2006. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to Ele fresh petition on 30th July, 2009 i.e much after passing of the order dated 30.6.2006. However, in the present writ petition, the petitioner has not prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.6.2006, though, this petition has been filed on30thApril, 2010. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, no relief can be granted to the petitioner by this Court in these proceedings. The petition has to be dismissed and is accordingly disraissed. 11. No order as to costs. ^ Praveen Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrwastava Judge