c^r' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION fSyNO._^73> O OF_20Q7 PETITIONER ^'^^" ^t-p RESPQN^ENTS Basanti Widow of Late Shri Dharamjit, aged about 25 years, Caste Khairwar (S.T.),Resident of Lokodafai, Charcha Colliery, Police Station Charcha, . Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). VERSUS South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through: The Chairman cum Managing Director, Seepat Road Bilaspur (C.G.). The Chief General Mahager; S.E.C.L. Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G,). 3. The Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, S.E.C.L. Baikunthpur, Ditrict Koriya.(C.G.). «<' • • 4. The Personnel Manager, S.E.C.L. Charcha West Area, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). 5. The Sub Area Manager, S.E.C.L. Charcha West Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA V. ^s'^'!%^ f». HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRITPETITIONfS) No.593^of2007 Basanti. RESPONDENTS VERSUS South Eastern Coalfields Limited & 4 Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.S.Koshy and Shri N.N.Roy, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER fORAL) (Passed on 28th day ofApril, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 10.04.2007 (Aimexure P/17) passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in terms of the National Coal Wage Agreement - VI (for short 'NCWA') (Annexure P/18) was rejected on the ground that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the records maintained by the respondents. Indisputable facts, in brief, are that the petitioner's husband, nainely Dharamjit, while working as C.C.M. Operator Category- V, in the respondent-Coalfields, died in hamess on 12.10.1999 (Annexure P/l). Thereafter, an application was made by the petitioner, being the wife and dependent ofthe deceased employee, on 21.05.2004 (Annexure P/10). The respondents took about three years to decide the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. The application was rejected on 10.04.2007 (Annexure P/17) not on any other ground but only on b !l the ground that the name of the petitioner was not in the service records maintained by the respondents. 3. Shri Shukla, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no covenant in the agreement, not disputed by both the parties, and also there is no dispute with regard to the fact that it is nowhere mentioned that only the dependent members of the deceased employee, whose names are recorded in the service book, would be entitled to consideration for appointment on compassionate basis. Shri Shukla further submits that the application of the petitioner was not dismissed on account of any other factor like delay etc., but for the reason as aforestated. Thus, the impugned order is bad, vitiated aad contrary to the statutory provisions and facts on record. He further submits that the petitioner has even been paid all the retiral benefits without questioning the dependence of the petitioner on the deceased employee. Shri Shukla next submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to retum back all the retiral dues, if necessary, on grant of compassionate appointment. 4. On the other hand, Shri Roy, ieamed counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there was a delay in making fhe application for compassionate appointment and the name of the petitioner was also not mentioned in fhe service record of the deceased husband. 5. On consideration of the rival submissions of leamed counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the documents appended to the pleadings, it is evident that there is no provision in the NCWA on the prescription of time in making an application for ??• r°!<^\ o^ compassionate appointment. Secondly, there is also no requirement that the name of the dependent person should have been recorded in the service book of the deceased employee for grant of compassionate appointment. ^urther, the impugned order was not passed on fhe ground that the application was made after five years, on the contrary, the respondents themselves have taken about three years to consider and pass appropriate order in the application of the petitioner. Thus, the action of the respondents also defeats the purpose of compassionate appointment and since ttiere is no prescription of tune for making application which was also not the ground while rejecting the application ofthe petitioner. The reason stated by the respondent-Coalfields in the impugned order dated 10.04.2007 (Annexure P/I7) is unwarranted as the petitioner has been considered for grant of retiral benefits without questioning the relationship or dependency of the petitioner on the deceased employee. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 10.04.2007 (Annexure P/17) is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the terms of NCWA and pass appropriate order, at the earliest. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition i^'allowed. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit