Ramandeep Singh Maan v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Others), whereby
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:14201-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 206 of 2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.25 17:05:36 +0530 Ramandeep Singh Maan S/o Late Gurjeet Singh Aged About 24 Years R/o House No. 1 C-98, Ward No. 10, Vishrampur, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through General Manager, S.E.C.L. Office Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Manager (Personnel), South Eastern Coalfields Limited Dugga Region, Bhatgaon, District - Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Regional Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited Dugga Region, Bhatgaon, District - Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.03.2025 2 1. Heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents on I.A. No.01/2025 is an application for condonation of delay of 1225 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 17.09.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4971 of 2021 (Ramandeep Singh Maan vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 4. Brief fact of the case is that the appellant is original writ petitioner, had challenged the rejection of his case for grant of compassionate/dependent employment, in place of his father. Father of the writ petitioner namely Gurjeet Singh Maan, was appointed with the respondents department on 3/8/1990 and he was continuously working with full honesty and sincerity with department. During service period, all of sudden the father of the writ petitioner died in harness on 6/11/2018. At the time of the
Decision
death, father of the writ petitioner was working as Senior Clerk with the respondent department. Father and mother of the writ petitioner were separated long time before the death of petitioner's 3 father. After the death of petitioner's father, the writ petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate/dependent appointment on 22/12/2018. Respondents accepted the application of writ petitioner an don 30/12/18, a certificate was issued by the respondents to the effect that after the death of the writ petitioner's father, neither nay compassionate appointment nor any financially assistance had been proved to any of the dependent of the writ petitioner and further name of the writ petitioner had been forwarded for grant of compassionate/dependent appointment. Vide order date 26/09/19, the respondents rejected the same on the ground that mother of the writ petitioner is a government employee and thus writ petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. Against the rejection, the writ petitioner filed the WPS No. 4971/2021 and vide order date 17/9/2021, the learned Single Judge dismissed the same on the ground that dependency of the writ petitioner automatically falls upon the mother who is already in government employment. Being aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner herein has preferred this present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge failed to consider that provision of NCWA, does bar or disqualified the writ petitioner to get the employment on compassionate ground in case both spouse are in employment. The reason that order dated 26/9/19 passed by respondents is in violation to the order of the Hon'ble Court as under the similar 4 circumstance, the this Court already had passed an order against the respondents and in favour of the dependents. The learned Single Judge, failed to consider that there was specific pleading in the petition, that mother was living separately from the father because of the dispute. In the Mater of WP(S) No. 832/2012 “Avinash Saloman”, this Court was pleased to consider the matter under the similar circumstances and passed an order in favour of the dependent. The learned Single Judge has also considered that matter and dismissed the Writ Appeal of the respondents under the similar circumstances. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner / appellant herein observing that admittedly, no divorce took place between the writ petitioner’s deceased father and mother as such, the mother of the writ petitioner and wife of the deceased employee for all practical purposes have to be legally 5 construed as husband and wife and the moment either of the spouse expires, the dependency of the children falls upon other member. In the instant case, it is the father who expired on 06.11.2018 and therefore, the dependency of the writ petitioner automatically falls upon the mother who is already a government employee. Under the circumstances, the learned Single Judge concluded that if the respondents have rejected the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment, the same cannot be said to be bad in law, arbitrary or contrary to the policy of dependent employment application under the respondents. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet