Korba, Chhattisgarh v. 1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:24850 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved on 03-03-2025 Pronounced on 17-06-2025 WPS No. 4087 of 2021 • Smt. Usha Bai, D/o Late Sukrit Das, W/o Narayan Das, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sarwamangla Nagar, Durpa, Post - Durpa, Tehsil Katghora, Police Station - Kusmunda, District - Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. General Manager (Personnel / Mp), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. General Manager (Mining), Kusmunda Project, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Post Office - Kusmunda Colliery, District - Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4. Area Personnel Manager, Kusmunda Project, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, Post Office - Kusmunda Colliery, District - Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5. Deputy Manager (Personnel), Kusmunda Project, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, Post Office - Kusmunda Colliery, District - Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondents : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. (SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) C A V Order 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21-12-2020 passed by the respondent No. 3 by which the application of the petitioner for grant of dependent employment has been rejected on the count that the petitioner is over aged at the time of consideration on 06.10.2020 and she was aged 42 years and 6 months. 2. The brief facts reflected from the record are that A) The petitioner’s father late Sukrit Das while working as Peon at Kusmunda area died in harness on 13-2-2018. As per National Coal Wage Settlement Chapter X provides dependent benefits to the family members deceased employee. It is also case of the petitioner that during his life time late Sukrit Das had submitted his personal details for service record and as per the entries made in the service record regarding details of family members, name of petitioner was also included. It has also been averred that though she was married to Narayan Das but she was living with her father as her husband was unable to maintain her. It is also case of the petitioner that after death of late Sukrit Das, Milap Das brother of the present petitioner with consent of family members submitted an application before the respondent authority for grant of dependent employment which was rejected vide order dated 11-4-2019 on the count that at the time of 3 consideration he was aged about 42 years and 6 months. B) Thereafter, present petitioner moved an application on 3-6-2019 for grant of dependent employment wherein her mother has also stated that she is completely dependent on the earnings of her father but since she was married her claim was rejected. It is further submitted that earlier as per policy of SECL a married daughter was not entitled to get dependent employment. This was challenged before this Court by Smt. Asha Pandey in Writ Petition No. 4994/2015 which was allowed on 15.03.2016 and against that order Writ Appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court which was also dismissed. C) The petitioner has also challenged rejection order of her application for grant of dependent employment on the count that married daughter is not entitled to get dependent employment by filing WPS No. 9216 of 2019 before this Court wherein this Court vide order dated 11-12-2019 has directed the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the order passed in the case of Smt. Asha Pandey vs. Coal India Limited and Others passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 4994 of 2015. This order was assailed by the respondent authority by filing Writ Appeal No. 213 of 2020 wherein the order passed by the learned single Judge has been upheld vide order dated 25-2-2020. D) Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was reconsidered and accordingly the petitioner was directed to appear before the Medical Board on 5-10-2020 at Nehru Shatabdi Hospital, SECL, Gevra for age determination and the age of the petitioner was found as 42 4 years and 6 months and accordingly her claim was rejected vide order dated 21.12.2020 (Annexure P/1). It is also case of the petitioner that the District Medical Board consisted of medical experts after examining certified that the age of petitioner is 34 years. Even from the radiological report also it has been specifically opined that the age of the petitioner is in between 30-35 years. Being the said position where the age of the petitioner was specifically found to be less than 35 years, she again made a representation before the respondent authority on 15-1-2021 for consideration of her case for grant of dependent employment which has not been considered. Hence, this writ petition for grant of dependent employment. 3. Respondent/SECL has filed their return denying the allegations
Decision
made in the writ petition mainly contending that as per instruction No. 76 of NCWA, -III, the age of illiterate new incumbents has to be determined by the company Medical Board/Doctors which shall be binding on the parties since the Medical Board/Directors have held that the age of the petitioner was 42 years and 6 months which cannot be held to be illegal or unjustifiable warranting any interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. It is also contended that grant of dependent employment has to be considered in terms of rules which were in existence at the time of death of the deceased employee and at the relevant point of time, there was no provision for grant of dependent employment to a married daughter, therefore, her case cannot be considered again. It is also contended that the dependent employment cannot be 5 claimed as a matter of right as it is not another source of recruitment. The claim for such appointment has to be considered in accordance with rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration financial condition of family of the deceased. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (Now U.T. of Jammu and Kashmir & others) vs. Shubam Sangra, reported in (2022) 8 SCR 349 and would submit that there is no good reason to overlook or ignore or doubt the credibility of the final opinion given by a team of Doctors. In absence of all other acceptable materials, if opinion of the experts points to a reasonable possibility regarding range of hers age, the Court must consider the same in the interest of justice and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The petitioner has filed rejoinder wherein it has been contended that from the documents filed by the respondent in Form PS-3, age of the petitioner was mentioned as 14 years on 22-5-1998. In the LTC option form which is filled and certified by the respondent authorities in the year 1991, therein also the age of the petitioner is mentioned as 7 years, therefore, it cannot be visualized that the age of the petitioner cannot be 42 years and 6 months in the year 2020. The above fact clearly establishes that the medical report prepared by the respondent authorities is false to deprive the dependents from their legal claim for grant of dependent employment and would pray for allowing this writ petition. 6 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the point emerged for determination of this Court is whether recording of the age of the petitioner as 42 year and 6 months by the Medical Board is legal and justified? 7. Respondent/SECL has filed the service record of the petitioner’s father as Annexure R/3 ie., service register and along with service register, the details of the family members of the deceased employee have also been mentioned wherein the age of the the petitioner as on 22-5-1998 in PS Form-III, was mentioned as 14 years and age of her brother was mentioned as 18 years on the said date, as such there is difference of 4 years between their age. The record of the case would further show that the respondents have rejected the claim of the brother of the petitioner for grant of dependent employment vide Annexure P/3 dated 11.04.2019 on the count that as on 15.03.2019 the age of the petitioner’s brother was determined to be 42 years 6 months whereas the age of the petitioner has been determined on 21.09.2020 again as 42 years 6 months which is not feasible as in the record maintained by the respondents themselves there was difference of age of both of them 4 years. Even along with the Radiology report no such material was placed on record to justify the age of the petitioner as 42 years and 6 months. The action of the respondents in determining of age is contrary to the instruction No. 76 which provides procedure for determination of age at the time of appointment particularly Clause 7 iv of the said clause which deals with determination of age of an illiterate person. Clause IV reads as under :- Illiterate. In the cases of appointees not covered under the foregoing clauses, the date of birth will be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any documentary and other relevant evidence as provided by the appointee. Date of birth as determined shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under circumstances. 8. From the above stated clause of the instruction it is quite vivid that the respondents while considering the age of the petitioner by Colliery Medical Officer shall also consider other relevant evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is claiming dependent employment of deceased employee and the relevant record of the deceased employee wherein the age of the petitioner is also available. From the decision Annexure P/1 and Radiology Report (Annexure R/4) it is quite vivid that there is no whisper about consideration of the other records while determining the age. Thus, the respondents themselves violated their own instruction which is binding in nature and the Radiology report is not conclusive proof of age. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the respondents to consider the other records available with them while determining the age of petitioner as on date of application i.e. 03.06.2019. 9. Since the respondents have not followed the instruction, which is binding in nature and law provides that if any thing has to be done in a particular manner other modes are not permissible and vitiate the entire decision taken by the authorities. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 8 case of Opto Circuit India Ltd. vs Axis Bank { 2021 6 SCC 707} in paragraph 14 has held as under :- “14. This Court has time and again emphasised that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner. Among others, in a matter relating to the presentation of an Election Petition, as per the procedure prescribed under the Patna High Court Rules, this Court had an occasion to consider the Rules to find out as to what would be a valid presentation of an Election Petition in the case of Chandra Kishor Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 266 and in the course of consideration observed as hereunder: “17…..It is a well settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner”. Therefore, if the salutary principle is kept in perspective, in the instant case, though the Authorised Officer is vested with sufficient power; such power is circumscribed by a procedure laid down under the statute. As such the power is to be exercised in that manner alone, failing which it would fall foul of the requirement of complying due process under law. We have found fault with the Authorised Officer and declared the action bad only in so far as not following the legal requirement before and after freezing the account. This shall not be construed as an opinion expressed on the merit of the allegation or any other aspect relating to the matter and the action initiated against the appellant and its Directors which is a matter to be taken note in appropriate proceedings if at all any issue is raised by the aggrieved party.” 10. The record of the case clearly demonstrates that the respondents have not followed the procedure while determining the age of the petitioner, therefore, this Court taking into consideration the well settled position of law cannot interfere in the decision but it can interfere in the decision making process if it is against procedure prescribed under the statutes. 9 11. Considering the above stated legal position and facts of the case, it is quite vivid that the respondents SECL has not taken into consideration the relevant records while determining the age of the petitioner. Therefore, impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 21.12.2020 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondents to constitute Colliery Age Determination Committee who will take fresh decision in the matter of petitioner regarding her determination of age as per the instruction No. 76 Clause A (iv) as on 03.06.2019 on the basis of relevant documents available with the respondents or provided by the petitioner along with Radiology Report within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed in part. 13. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.06.18 10:46:32 +0530