Surendra Kumar v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Chairman -Cum-Managing

Judgment

1. This is second round of litigation. Earlier vide order dated 28.02.2026, Coordinate Bench of this Court had allowed this petition and respondents were directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s application for grant of dependent employment in accordance with the provisions contained in National Coal Wage Agreement (for brevity, “NCWA”), as applicable on the date of death of petitioner’s mother, without being influenced by the fact that the petitioner’s father is already in employment.

2. Aforesaid order dated 28.02.2026 was challenged by the respondents- SECL in an intra court appeal bearing Writ Appeal No. 402 of 2026, in which, learned Division Bench, vide order dated 08.05.2026, set aside the order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the Single Bench in WPS No. 8779 of 2023 observing therein in paragraph 11 to 15 as under:- “11. Despite raising specific objection regarding delay and laches and replied by the writ petitioner in rejoinder and despite submissions raised at the time of hearing of the writ petition by the respective parties, the consideration on that issue does not find place in the impugned order passed by the Single Judge.

12. Delay and laches is a vital issue involved in the writ petition as the parties have vehemently made their rival submissions on that issue and in view of the case of Surjeet Singh Sahni Vs. State 3 of Uttar Pradesh1, the delay in filing the writ petition, if any, have the substantial bearing in the writ petition. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the matter should be reheard by the learned Single Judge and to pass the order afresh considering the issue of delay and laches, as has been raised by the writ appellants SECL and

replied by the writ petitioner.

13. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge and remit the matter back to learned Single Judge by restoring WPS No. 8779 of 2023 to its original status for hearing and deciding the same afresh, including the issue of delay and laches as has been raised by the SECL, in accordance with law and after providing them proper opportunity of hearing, within six weeks from the first date of its listing before the learned Single Judge.

14. Registry is directed to list the restored case WPS No. 8779 of 2023 for hearing before the learned Single Judge without any further delay.

15. With the aforesaid observations, the writ appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above.

3. In light of aforesaid order of learned Division Bench, the case was restored and reheard. 1 AIR Online 2022 SC 226 4

4. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging in-action of respondent-authorities for not granting him employment as dependent of his deceased-mother in accordance with the provisions of NCWA, which is an agreement executed between the management and employees’ union of SECL. The petitioner has sought following reliefs in the instant writ petition :-

10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner and grant employment to the petitioner being dependent of his mother as per the Social Security Scheme as envisaged under the National Coal Wage agreement.

10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Company to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner as per the National Coal Wage Agreement.

10.4 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent company to pay compensation to the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner’s valuable right is unnecessarily being denied by the respondent company.

10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of petition.

5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Late Smt. Bhagwaniya, mother of petitioner, was employed as ‘General Mazdoor’ at Rajnagar OCM. During service period, she died on 07.05.2011. Being son and dependent family 5 member, petitioner applied on 12.9.2011 seeking dependent employment as per provisions of NCWA. Vide letter dated 20.4.2012, the respondents informed him, without assigning any reason, that his case could not be considered. Despite repeated requests and representations filed by the petitioner, he was not granted dependent employment. Hence, he filed instant writ petition on 30.10.2023.

6. Respondents -SECL filed its return stating inter alia that, since at the time of death of mother, father of the petitioner namely, Keshri Singh was already in employment with the SECL and working as Clerk Grade-II in Hasdeo Colliery Area, thus, the deceased was not sole bread earner of the family, therefore, in view of the policy decision taken in the 80th Meeting of Directors (Personnel) of all subsidiaries of Coal India Limited held on

16.4.2004, it was clarified that in case, spouse of the deceased employee is already employed, the question of providing further employment or monetary compensation does not arise. Another argument raised by the respondent- SECL pertains to delay and laches, as mother of the petitioner died on

07.05.2011, but the petitioner filed instant writ petition on 30.10.2023 i.e. after more than 12 years from the date of death of his mother.

7. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2026 allowed the writ petition directing the respondents-SECL to consider and decide the petitioner’s application for grant of dependent employment, which has been remitted by learned Division Bench vide order dated 8.5.2026 passed in Writ Appeal No. 402 of 2026, as has been stated in preceding paragraphs.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though at the time of death of mother of the petitioner, father of petitioner namely Shri 6 Keshri Singh was in employment with the respondents-SECL, but merely on this ground, the petitioner cannot be deprived of getting dependent employment under NCWA, because it has been held that NCWA is not a grant or scheme made by the employer, rather it is a settlement arrived at between the management and employees’ union of SECL. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mahto Vs. M/s. Central Coal Field Ltd. and others 2 , Smt. Subhadra vs. Ministry of Coal 3 and also relied upon the judgment of this High Court in the matter of Avinash Saloman Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited & others 4 and South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others v. Gulshan Prakash 5 . Against which, SLP (Civil) diary No. 12905 /2024 {South Eastern Coalfields Limited & others vs. Gulshan Prakash} & Diary No. (s) 12929 / 2024 have been rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.04.2024.

8.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that learned Division Bench, vide its order dated 08.05.2026, has remitted the matter for hearing and disposal of the same afresh on the issue of delay and laches raised by respondents-SECL, which has not been considered in earlier order dated

28.02.2026. He further submits that within five months from the date of death of petitioner’s mother, the petitioner filed an application on 12.9.2011 for grant of dependent employment, however, vide communication (Annexure P-4) dated 20.4.2012, the respondents informed him that his case could not be considered, but no reason was assigned for the same, therefore, the petitioner again and again visited the offices of Respondents No. 4 and 5, where he was given assurance only, but did not inform about the reason, 2 AIR 2008 SC 39 3 AIR 2018 SC 783 4 WP (S) No. 832 of 2012, decided on 30.11.2015 5 Writ Appeal No. 89 of 2026, decided on 11.10.2023. 7 nearly for about four years. Therefore, the petitioner filed representation on

19.08.2021 (Annexure P-5) before respondent No. 4 for grant of dependent employment, but no action was taken by them on that representation also, despite repeated oral prayer and being contacted to the respondent-SECL.

8.2. He further submits that since the petitioner is a person of labourer and down-trodden family, less-literate and resident of remote area and he was only assured by respondent authorities that his case will be considered, therefore, the delay occurred in filing the instant writ petition.

8.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments has held that if circumstances justify the conduct exists the illegality which is manifest, then delay and laches cannot be held to be sole ground to deprive the petitioner of grant of relief. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Urban Improvement Trust Vs. Vidhya Devi and others 6 , Tukaram Kana Joshi and others through Power-of-Attorney Holder vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and others 7 and Sudhir Ram @ Sudhir Kumar vs. Central Coalfields Limited & others 8 .

9. In response thereto, learned counsel for respondents-SECL while opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, learned Division Bench while setting aside and remitting earlier order, has also directed to decide the case afresh, including the issue of delay and laches, as has been raised by the SECL, in accordance with law. She further submits that, at the time of death of mother of the petitioner, father of the 6 AIR Online 2024 SC 928 7 8 (2013) 1 SCC 353 SLP (Civil) Diary No (s). 33900 of 2023, decided on 21.10.2024 8 petitioner was already in employment with respondents-SECL, therefore, dependency of the petitioner automatically shift upon his father, hence, it cannot be said that there was hardship or penury for survival of the family. Now, it is settled law that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, rather it can be granted only upon the death of the sole bread earner of the family. It cannot be granted solely on sympathetic considerations. With regard to the reliance placed on the NCWA, learned counsel submits that the same is misconceived, as in view of earlier decision taken in the 80th Meeting of Directors (personnel) of all subsidiaries of Coal India Limited held on 16.04.2004, it has been clarified that in case, spouse of the deceased employee is already employed, the question of providing further employment or monetary compensation does not arise. She further submits that the view taken by this Court in the case of Avinash Saloman Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited & others 9 , which has been affirmed by learned Division Bench in the matter of M/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited & others Vs. Avinash Saloman 10 and also in the matter of South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others v. Gulshan Prakash 11 , wherein it has been held that under the NCWA, a co-dependent is entitled to get dependent employment even when another co-dependent is already in service, has been distinguished by learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sebron Ashawan Vs. South Eastern Coal Limited & others 12 , and the petitioner therein had subsequently withdrawn the SLP (C) No. 10384/2024 filed in that case. Similar view has also been taken by learned Division Bench in the case of Ramandeep Singh Maan vs. South Eastern 9 WP (S) No. 832 of 2012, decided on 30.11.2015 10 Writ Appeal No. 20 of 2016, decided on 11.10.2023 11 Writ Appeal No. 89 of 2016, decided on 111.10.2023 12 Writ Appeal No. 341 of 2021, decided on 24.04.2023 9 Coalfields Limited & others 13 , Minketan Chandra & another vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others 14 ,wherein it has been held by the Division Bench that when other spouse of deceased-employee is already in service, then co-dependent (petitioner) is not entitled to get dependent employment, even in SECL. Relying upon aforesaid judgments, learned counsel submits that since father of the petitioner was already in employment with respondents-SECL at the time of death of his mother, therefore, he is not entitled to get dependent employment. Hence, on this ground alone, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

9.1. Learned counsel for the respondents-SECL further contended that mother of the petitioner died on 7.5.2011. The petitioner had filed an application for dependent employment on 12.9.2011, but he was informed vide communication dated 20.04.2012 (Annexure P-4) that the Head Office had conveyed that it was not possible to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds; meaning thereby, his application was rejected. But, after more than 11 years from such rejection, the petitioner has filed instant writ petition, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches also. She further submits that though the petitioner filed representation dated 19.08.2016 before respondent No. 4 for grant of dependent employment, but filing such representation by the petitioner cannot be a ground of condonation of an inordinate delay, as Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Surjeet Singh Sahni (supra) has held that mere filing of representation will not extend the period of limitation.

9.2 She further submits that the Courts have consistently taken a view that the grant of compassionate appointment is only to succumb to the immediate 13 Writ Appeal No. 206 of 2025, decided on 25.03.2025 14 Writ Appeal No. 964 of 2025, decided on 07.01.2026 10 pressure arising out of the death of the bread-earner employee and once the dependents have been able to tide through the hardship for a long period then the purpose of grant of dependent employment no longer remains and such vacancy should be left open to be filled by means of competition among various candidates. In this regard, she placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of J & K vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir 15 , Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others Vs. T.T. Murlai Babu 16 , Rushibhai Jagdishbai Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation17, Bichitrananda Behera Vs. State of Orissa and others 18 .

10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

11. A focused glance of the earlier order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the Coordinate Bench in instant petition would show that the issue, as to whether, despite being father of the petitioner employed with respondents – SECL, on account of death of mother, who employed as General Mazdoor, the petitioner is entitled to get dependent employment under the NCWA, has been considered by the learned Coordinate Bench in detail from para 20 to 32 quoting relevant provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement and its interpretation in light of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, as has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohan Mahto (supra), Smt. Subhadra (supra) and Kanishk Sinha and another v. The State of West Bengal and other19. 15 (2006) 5 SCC 766 16 (2014) 4 SCC 108 17 2022 SCC Online SC 64 18 2023 Livelaw (SC) 883 19 {SLP (criminal) No. 8609-8614 of 2024 vide order dated 27.02.2025} 11

12. While deciding aforesaid issue, the Coordinate Bench has also considered the judgment rendered by learned Single Bench of this Court in the matter of Avinash Saloman (supra), which has also been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited & others vs. Avinash Saloman passed in Civil Appeal No. 8728 of 2018 vide judgment dated

20.02.2023, also in case of South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others v. Gulshan Prakash passed in Writ Appeal No. 89 of 2016 decided on 11.10.2023, as denial of dependent employment on similar ground, as has been raised by the respondents-SECL in the instant petition, has been disapproved.

13. After detailed discussion of provisions of NCWA and various judgments, learned Coordinate Bench has observed in para 29 and 30 as under :-

29. The distinction between a discretionary compassionate appointment under a statutory policy and dependant employment flowing from a binding bipartite settlement has been clearly reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Subhadra (supra), wherein it has been held that where the scheme forms part of a binding agreement, its terms leave no room for administrative discretion dehors the agreement. The legal position regarding the binding nature of precedents and the impermissibility of taking a view contrary to settled law has been elaborately considered in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra), emphasizing judicial discipline under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Further, the contention of the respondents regarding prospective operation of judgments stands repelled in view of the recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanishk Sinha (supra), wherein it has been clarified that law declared by a Constitutional Court is ordinarily retrospective 12 unless specifically directed otherwise.

30. In the instant case, therefore, the rejection/non- consideration of the petitioner’s claim solely on the ground that his father is already in employment is wholly misconceived and legally unsustainable. The petitioner’s mother died in harness while serving the respondent Company, thereby giving rise to a right in favour of one eligible dependant to be considered for employment under the Social Security Scheme contained in the NCWA. The Agreement nowhere provides for an absolute bar disentitling a dependant merely because another member of the family is in employment. Introducing such a condition by way of internal minutes or administrative policy would amount to adding to or altering the binding settlement, which is impermissible in law.

14. This Court also concurs with the observations and the finding recorded by the Coordinate bench in the earlier order that internal minutes dated 16.4.2004 passed in 80th Meeting of Directors (Personnel) of all subsidiaries of Coal India Limited cannot override the statutory and binding settlement under the NCWA. As such, learned Coordinate Bench arrived at the conclusion that despite father of the petitioner being employed with the respondents-SECL at the time of death of his mother, the petitioner is entitled to get dependent employment.

15. Perusal of the judgment rendered by learned Division Bench in the case of Ramandeep Singh Mann (Supra) and Minketan Chandra (supra), reveals that earlier view taken in the case Avinash Saloman (supra) and Gulshan Prakash (supra) was distinguished, but in the case of Minketan 13 Chandra (supra), view taken by the learned Division Bench in case of Gulshan Prakash (supra) was distinguished on the ground that deceased – Lakhan Lal Chandra was posted as a Subordinate Engineer in the Establishment of SECL, therefore, seeking dependent employment by the petitioner therein was declined because deceased was Executive Employee and grant of dependent employment against such post is governed by the Memorandum dated 13.3.1981 (Executive Policy) and not governed by the NCWA, whereas, in the instant case, the deceased -employee was posted as “General Mazdoor” governed by the NCWA, therefore, judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench in the matter of Minketan Chandra (supra) is not helpful to the respondents-SECL.

16. So far as view taken by the learned Division Bench in the matter of Ramandeep Singh Mann (supra) is concerned, it seems that, the view taken by learned Division Bench in the case of Avinash Saloman was not brought in detail. Therefore, having considered the doctrine of per incuriam, judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench in the case of Ramandeep Mann (supra) also not come in the rescue of respondents -SECL. Hence, on due consideration, this Court fully concurs with the finding recorded by learned Coordinate Bench in earlier order dated 28.02.2026, that even at the time of death of mother, father of the petitioner was in the employment of respondents-SECL, despite that the petitioner is entitled to get dependent employment as per the provisions of NCWA.

17. So far as ground of delay and laches raised by respondents-SECL is concerned, admittedly, mother of the petitioner died on 7.5.2011 and the application moved by the petitioner for grant of dependent employment on

12.9.2011 was rejected by the respondent No. 5-SECL and the same was 14 informed to the petitioner vide Communication dated 20.04.2012 (Annexure P-4), but instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner on 30.10.2023. Thus, the petitioner has filed instant petition after more than 12 years from the date of death of his mother and after about more than 10 years from the date of rejection of his application for dependent employment.

18. It is trite law that, the question of condonation of delay is one of the discretion of the Court and it has to be decided on the basis of facts of each case and it would be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to defeat. As such, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party, who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Where the circumstances justifying the conduct exists, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches.

19. Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the delay and laches in the matter of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others (supra) has held as under :- “17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for 15 it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van Winkle’. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.”

20. In the matter of Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak (supra), their Lordship of the Supreme Court held as under :- “9. The doctrine of delay and laches, or for that matter statutes of limitation, are considered to be statutes of repose and statutes of peace, though some contrary opinions have been expressed (in Nav Rattanmal Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1704). The courts have expressed the view that the law of limitation rests on the foundations of greater public interest for three reasons, namely, (a) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them; (b) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disapprove a stale claim; and (iii) that persons with good causes of action (who are able to enforce them) should pursue them with reasonable diligence (State of Kerala Vs. V.R. Kalliyanikutty, (1999) 3 SCC 657 relying on Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 28, para 605; Halsbury’s lawas of England, Vol. 68 (2021) para 1005. Equally, change in de facto position or character, creation of third party rights over a period of time, waiver, acquiesce, and need to ensure certitude in dealings, are equitable public policy considerations why period of limitation is prescribed by law. Law of limitation does not apply to writ petitions, albeit the discretion vested with a constitutional 16 court is exercised with caution as delay and laches principle is applied with the aim to secure the quiet of the community, suppress fraud and perjury, quicken diligence, and prevent oppression. See Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510. Therefore, some decisions and judgments do not look upon pleas of delay and laches with favour, especially and rightly in cases where the persons suffer from adeptness, or incapacity to approach the courts for relief. However, other decisions, while accepting the rules of limitation as well as delay and laches, have observed that such rules are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties but serve a larger public interest and are founded on public policy. There must be a lifespan during which a person must approach the court for their remedy. Otherwise, there would be unending uncertainty as to the rights and obligations of the parties. (See N. Blarkrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurty, (1998) 7 SCC 123.

21. In the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi,