Nafr High Court
Case Details
-1- Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2025:CGHC:43783 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1197 of 2018 Keshav Late Shri Dheer Sai, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Chhurikhurd, Police Station Chhurikala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1- South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2- The General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sam Surakachhar, Balangi Sub Area, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3- The Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Ivhc, Secl, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4- The Sub Area Manager, Srk, Balangi, Sub Area, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) and WPS No. 1547 of 2018
Legal Reasoning
record, and birth certificates. However, it is well settled that the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhaar card or Voter ID cannot be treated as conclusive proof of age. With regard to the birth certificates, the same were admittedly issued in the years 2017 and 2018. The petitioners have not pleaded or proved the source of those certificates. 8) In the service records, the dates of birth of the petitioners are not available. When the department did not find any conclusive proof regarding the age, the -5- matter was referred to the Age Determination Committee. The Committee medically examined the petitioners and opined that the petitioner Keshav was 37.6 years old and the petitioner Ramayan Das was 42.6 years of age at the time of the death of their father & mother (deceased employees). These findings are given by an expert body, and the same cannot be interfered with in the absence of any concrete contrary material. 9) As per the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA- VI & IX), the claim for dependent employment can be considered only if the age of the dependent is below 35 years on the date of the death of the deceased employee. In the present case, since the petitioners were found to be more than 35 years of age, their applications were rightly rejected by the respondent authorities.
Arguments
Ramayan Das S/o S/o Late Shri Dhan Das, Aged About 32 Years R/o Vijay Nagar (Junadih), Post Gevra, District Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh -2- 2 - The General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Gevra Project, District Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Ivhc, Secl, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Senior Manager (Personnel), Secl, Gevra Project, District Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners For Respondents Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh Advocate and Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.08.2025 1) In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 13/19.01.2017 passed by the Sub Area Manager, SRK, Balangi Sub-Area, District Korba, and the order dated 07/08.06.2017 passed by the General Manager, SECL Gevra Project, whereby the applications preferred by the petitioners for dependent employment/compassionate appointment have been rejected on the ground that at the time of the death of the deceased employees, the petitioners were more than 35 years of age. 2) Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would argue that the father of the petitioner Keshav died on 16.05.2015, who was working on the post of Tendal under the Sub Area Manager, Surakachhar Mines, Balangi -3- Sub-Area. The mother of the petitioner-Ramayana Das, namely Smt. Bandhan Kunwar died on 01.09.2011, who was working as a General Mazdoor. Applications for dependent employment were moved on 17.02.2016 and 16.09.2011, respectively, but both applications were rejected on the ground that the petitioners were more than 35 years of age on the date of the death of the deceased employees. 3) He would further submit that, as per Aadhaar cards, Voter ID, service book entries, and birth certificates, the petitioners were below the age of 35 years on the date of death of their father and mother, but those documents were not considered by the authorities. Instead, the petitioners were referred to the Age Determination Committee, which assessed the age of petitioner Keshav as 37 years 6 months, and that of the petitioner Ramayan Das as 42 years 6 months. It is contended that when the documentary evidence was available to the respondents, there was no necessity for referring the matter to the Age Determination Committee. Learned counsel prays for quashing the orders dated 13/19.01.2017 and 07/08.06.2017. 4) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would argue that the petitioners failed to produce conclusive proof regarding their dates of birth; therefore, the matter was rightly referred to the Age Determination Committee. The Committee medically examined the petitioners and opined that the petitioner Keshav was 37.6 years and the petitioner Ramayan Das was 42.6 years at the relevant date. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not -4- challenged the findings of the Age Determination Committee. The counsels appearing for the respondents also contended that the birth certificates relied upon by the petitioners were issued only in the years 2017 and 2018, much after the death of the employees, and therefore cannot be treated as reliable proof. Accordingly, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 6) It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner, Keshav, died on 16.05.2015, and the mother of the petitioner, Ramayan Das, died on 01.09.2011, while in employment under the respondents. The applications for compassionate appointment moved by the petitioners were rejected by the respondent authorities on the ground that they had crossed the permissible age limit, i.e., 35 years, for employment on the date of the death of the employees. 7) The petitioners have placed reliance on the Aadhaar card, Voter ID, service
Decision
10) In view of the above discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders impugned. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim