1 Smt. Jagpati Bai W/o Late Nohar Sai, Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward v. 1 The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Head Quarter, Seepat
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35309-DB NAFR JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.24 12:01:27 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 513 of 2025 1 Smt. Jagpati Bai W/o Late Nohar Sai, Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Talwapara, Vishrampur, Police Station Vishrampur, Now District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) 2 Karamjeet, S/o Late Nohar Sai, Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Talwapara, Vishrampur, Police Station Vishrampur, Now District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 2 The Sub Area Manager, North Chirmiri, Domanhil Group, P.O. Sonwani Colliery, District Korea (Chhattisgarh) 3 The Area Personnel Manager, North Chirmiri Colliery, Chirmiri, District Korea (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
this Court in WPS No. 214 of 2014, by which, the learned Single
Arguments
: Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.07.2025 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 25.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of
Decision
Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case is that husband of the petitioner was working as a Helper under the respondents in North Chirmiri Colliery. The husband of the petitioner died while on rolls of the respondents on 22.06.2006. The petitioner thereafter applied for compassionate appointment. Though the claim of the petitioner was rejected earlier, subsequently the petitioner approached this Court vide WPS No. 3202/2013 which was disposed of on 01.10.2013 directing the petitioner to make a suitable representation and further directed the respondents to consider and decide the said representation. Thereafter, the petitioner again made a representation to the authority concerned which was rejected vide impugned order dated 11.12.2013 and thereafter WPS NO. 214 of 2014 was filed which was rejected by learned 3 single judge. Thus this appeal. 3. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has observed as under :- 5. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the records, the dates in the instant case would be relevant. The deceased employee as per the Management left his employment on 21.12.1996. He did not resume his duty till the date of his death on 22.02.2006. The deceased employee was not paid any salary or monetary assistance in any form during the said period i.e. from 21.12 1996 till his death. Further admitted factual position also reveals that the petitioner for the first time approached the Court vide WPS No. 3202/2013 in after more than 7 years from the date of death of her husband. Thus the petitioner seems to have sufficient means for sustaining herself as is evident from the fact that from 1996 till 2006 and till the first round of litigation was filed in 2013. or else she would have knocked the door of the Court on an earlier occasion: 6. So far as the compassionate appointment is concerned, it is always meant to tide away the immediate crisis that the family faces on the death of 4 the sole bread earner in the family. In the instant case, the bread earner was the deceased employee who himself had left employment about 10 years back from the date of his death without any intimation. That these 10 years period, there was no salary paid or any monetary assistance was given and even after the death of the deceased employee, the petitioner did not avail the legal remedy for another further period of 7 years till 2013 when the first writ petition was filed. This would clearly establish the fact that for almost 17 years the petitioner did not avail the remedy for any monetary assistance from the respondents or from any Court of law which goes to establish that she had sufficient means to sustain herself. The object and intention of providing compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate financial crisis which the family of the deceased employee suffers on account of the death of the employee. In the instant case, the petitioner has not been able to give any plausible explanation or justification for the delay in approaching the Court and showing as to how she did not approach the Court promptly and how she was sustaining herself for a period of well over 17 years before she approached the Court. 5 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner calling for an interference with in impugned order. The writ petition accordingly stands rejected.” 4. The writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner reiterating the same plea that the rejection of application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by the respondent is illegal and arbitrary to law. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the reason assigned by the respondents in rejecting the claim application of the writ petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law. According to the writ petitioner, she fulfills all the eligibility criteria so far as the scheme for dependent employment applicable under the respondents department is concerned and that the same could not have been rejected by the authority concerned and the action on the part of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner is therefore per se illegal and deserves to be set aside/quashed. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has not rightly appreciated the facts of the present case and the present appeal needs to be allowed. 6. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it is a case where the deceased employee had in fact abandoned his service long back and he was not serving the respondents for 6 more than a decade, therefore, employer and employee relationship itself had ceased. The contention of the respondents is that the deceased employee in fact had not reported for duty continuously since 21. 12. 1996 onwards till his death which took place on 22.02.2006 on the basis of which, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner does not warrant any interference. Further contention of the respondents is that from the records available it is reflected that the employee was not paid salary from 21.12.1996 on-wards till his death and even thereafter during all these period, there was no claim putforth by the petitioner which itself shows that the petitioner had sufficient means available to sustain herself and that she was not dependent upon the employment of the deceased. Further contention of the respondents is that the claim of the petitioner also suffers from delay and laches for the reason that the record shows that earlier also the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Management as early as on 02.09.2006 which again was never challenged or questioned before any forum and the decision of the Management rejecting the claim of the petitioner attains finality. Thus, counsel for the respondents prayed for rejection of the writ appeal. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 8. Bare perusal of the records show that husband of the petitioner 7 died on 22.06.2006 whereas as per the management he has abandoned his service on 21.12.1996 and he did not resume his duty till the date of his death i.e. 22.06.2006. Further, it also transpires that no salary or monetary assistance in any form during the said period i.e. from 21.12.1996 till his death was paid. Further, admitted factual position also reveals that the petitioner for the first time approached the Court vide WPS No. 3202/2013 in after more than 7 years from the date of death of her husband. Thus the petitioner seems to have sufficient means for sustaining herself as is evident from the fact that from 1996 till 2006 and till the first round of litigation was filed in 2013 or else she would have knocked the door of the Court on an earlier occasion. 9. So far as the compassionate appointment is concerned, it is always meant to tide away the immediate crisis that the family faces on the death of the sole bread earner in the family. In the instant case, the bread earner was the deceased employee who himself had abandoned his service about 10 years back from the date of his death without any intimation. In these 10 years period, there was no salary paid or any monetary assistance was given and even after the death of the deceased employee, the petitioner did not avail the legal remedy for another further period of 7 years till 2013 when the first writ petition was filed. This would clearly establish the fact that for almost 17 years the petitioner did not avail the remedy for any monetary assistance from the 8 respondents or from any Court of law which goes to establish that she had sufficient means to sustain herself. Moreover the delay caused in approching the court for remedy is also not explained by the petitioner. 10. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, we are of the view that the order passed by learned single judge is just and proper and needs no interference. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar