1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 1621 of 2023

J udgment Reserved On : 22.01.2026

Judgment Delivered On : 28.02.2026

1 - Smt. Laxmaniya Binjhawar W/o Shri Patiram Binjhawar Aged About 72 Years R/o

Village Naraibodh, Post-Gevra Basti, Tahsil Dipka District Korba (C.G.), Present

Address- Gevra Basti, Ward No. 60, Police Station Kusmunda, Tahsil Dipka,

District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

2 - Smt. Beena Binjhwar Wd/o Late Shri Pawan Singh, Aged About 36 Years R/o

Village Naraibodh, Post- Gevra Basti, Tahsil Dipka District- Korba (C.G.), Present

Address Gevra Basti, Ward No.60, Police Station- Kusmunda, Tahsil Dipka, District :

Korba, Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The Chairman-Cum- Managing

Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, District : Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh

2 - The General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Gevra Project, District :

Korba, Chhattisgarh

3 - The Deputy Manager (Personnel), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Gevra

Project, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

2

For Petitioner(s):Mr. RR Soni, Advocate

For Respondent(s)/

SECL

:Mr. Saksham Soni, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.S.

Baghel, Advocate

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

C A V Order

1.The petitioners are aggrieved by the letter dated 24.12.2022

(Annexure P/1) issued by the Deputy Manager, SECL Gevra. By

way of the impugned letter, the application filed by petitioner

No.2- Smt. Beena Binjhwar for grant of compassionate

appointment on account of the death of her brother Rajaram in

harness, was rejected. The rejection was made on the ground that

as per the prevailing Rules of the Company, a sister does not fall

within the definition of a ‘dependent’ eligible for compassionate

appointment.

2.The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following

reliefs :

10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the

entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the

respondents for it's kind perusal;

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a

suitable writ, order or direction and quash/set-aside the

letter/order dated 24.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by the

respondent no.3;

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a

suitable writ, order or direction commanding the respondents

to grant dependant employment to the petitioner no.2 in

3

place of Late Shri Rajaram (the son of the petitioner no.1 and

the brother of the petitioner no.2); and

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit

and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioners.

3.The case, as projected by the petitioners, are that petitioner No.1

is the mother of late Rajaram, who died in harness while working

as a trainee in the SECL. During his lifetime, the deceased had

applied for employment under the rehabilitation policy in lieu of

land acquired for the SECL Gevra Project; however, on 11.4.2022,

Rajaram died in a motor accident. Being unmarried at the time of

his death, he left behind no legal heirs other than petitioner No.1

(mother) and petitioner No.2 (sister). During his lifetime,

deceased- Rajaram was the sole breadwinner for his family and

the petitioners were wholly dependent upon him. Petitioner No.1,

mother of the deceased, who is aged about 72 years, was

maintained entirely by her late son. Similarly, petitioner No.2, his

sister, relied upon him for her sustenance. On account of sudden

demise of Rajaram in the motor accident, an application for

dependent employment was submitted along with all relevant

documents. Nevertheless, the said application was rejected on the

ground that the sister of a deceased employee is ineligible for

such an appointment.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the mother

and sister (petitioners herein) were entirely dependent upon the

deceased employee- Rajaram. He submits that petitioner No.1 is

a widowed mother and petitioner No.2 is a widowed sister, the

4

latter’s husband having passed away on 8.4.2002. Since the

demise of the husband of petitioner No.2, she has been residing

at her maternal home with petitioner No.1 and Rajaram

(deceased). He further submits that as there are no other eligible

dependents capable of seeking employment, petitioner No.2 is

entitled to be considered for dependent employment to ensure

survival of the family. He also submits that denial by the

respondent authorities on the ground that sisters are not eligible

under the Company’s Rules, is in total disregard of Article 14 of

the Constitution of India. Both this Court and the Hon’ble

Supreme Court have consistently held that daughters and sisters

are also entitled to be considered for dependent (compassionate)

employment. He submits that the issue with regard to grant of

dependent employment to a sister has already been decided by

the High Court of Bombay in the judgment rendered in the matter

of Shimla D/o Late Satiram Rajbhar and another Vs. Western

Coalfields Ltd. Saoner and others reported in 2023 SCC

OnLine Bom 178. In support of his submisssions, he would

further place reliance on a judgment rendered by the High Court

of Jharkhand in the matter of Madhubala Sinha Vs. Central

Coalfields’ Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing

Director & others (in both) reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar

3356, to submit that the SECL is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited

similar to Western Coalfields and Central Coalfields, it cannot

deny employment to a sister . As the legal right to such

employment is now settled law, the respondents’ denial is per se

5

illegal and unsustainable. Accordingly, the present petition

deserves to be allowed.

5.Per contra, learned counsel for the SECL submits that petitioner

No.2 was not dependent upon the deceased employee. The facts

of the present case are different from the judgments cited by the

petitioner. According to NCWA (National Coal Wage Agreement),

which is binding upon all Coal Companies, sisters are not entitled

to get dependent employment. It has been argued that in

Madhubala Sinha (supra), the Court has directed to pay monthly

monetary compensation rather than dependent employment.

Learned counsel for the SECL submits that the said order was

passed in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case, leaving the legal issue open and thus, it may not have any

binding effect. In support of his submissions, learned counsel

would also place reliance on the order dated 31.7.2024 passed by

this Court in WPS No.498/2016 (Smt. Sona Bai Vs. South

Eastern Coal Fields Limited and others), to submit that the

petitioner’s claim is not legally sustainable.

6.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the

documents annexed with the petition with utmost circumspection.

7.From a bare perusal of the record, it is apparent that Rajaram was

the son of petitioner No.1 and the brother of petitioner No.2.

Having died unmarried in a motor accident on 11.4.2022, he was

the sole breadwinner for a family consisting of his mother and

sister. Petitioner No.1 is his widowed mother and Petitioner No.2

is his widowed sister, who after her husband’s demise, returned to

6

her maternal home. These facts establish that the family was

comprised of three members and the sudden demise of the sole

breadwinner left the survivors in a state of dependency. The issue

regarding the eligibility of a sister for dependent employment is no

longer res integra. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

as also this Court has affirmed that no discrimination can be

permitted against women at large in the matter of compassionate

or dependent employment.

8.Furthermore, in Madhubala Sinha (supra), the following was held

in paragraphs 23 to 29 :

23. Having heard learned counsels for both the

sides and upon going through the record, we find

that in both these appeals, Clause 9.3.3 of the

NCWA, which makes provision for employment of

dependent of the workman who dies while in

service, needs to be interpreted, which reads as

follows:—

“9.3.3. The dependant for this purpose means the

wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried

daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such

direct dependent is available for employment,

brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law

or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost

wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased

may be considered to be the dependant of the

deceased.”

24. A bare reading of the aforesaid clause clearly

shows that the brother of the deceased workman

comes within the zone of consideration for

appointment on compassionate ground in absence

of wife, husband and unmarried daughter, son and

7

legally adopted son. The father, mother and sister of

the deceased workman have been totally excluded

from the list of dependants, though, it cannot be

denied that an employee dying at a very young age,

may be leaving behind father and mother, who were

dependants upon him/her, still within the age of

consideration of compassionate appointment. Thus

a plain reading of this provision clearly shows that if

the workman dies unmarried, except for his/her

brother, no other blood relative is within the

consideration zone for employment on

compassionate ground, though they may be fully

dependent upon the earnings of the deceased

workman at the time of his/her death in harness. We

are of the considered view that so far as the parents

of the deceased workman are concerned, the

deceased was in a moral and legal obligation to

maintain them and if he/she failed to maintain them,

the action would lie under Section 125 of the Cr.

P.C. as well. In that view of the matter, there

appears to be no reason as to why, such parents of

the workman dying unmarried at an young age, be

not included in the list of the dependants for being

considered for compassionate appointment, if they

are capable and otherwise eligible for the same.

Excluding such parents of the deceased workman,

cannot be said to be based on any plausible

justification.

25. So far as the sister is concerned, we find from a

plain reading of Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA quoted

above that the brother of the deceased workman

dying unmarried, if fully dependent upon him, is also

entitled to be considered for appointment on

compassionate ground. In that view of the matter,

8

there is no reason as to why, sister, whether married

or unmarried, should be deprived of such benefit. If

a sister is denied the benefit of compassionate

appointment only on the ground that she is not

included as dependent under Clause 9.3.3 of

NCWA, this is a clear case of gender bias and the

same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, also

on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 15 of the

Constitution of India. At this juncture, we are

tempted to quote Section 13 of the General Clauses

Act, even though the General Clauses Act relates to

Central Acts and Regulations. We are referring to

this Section as admittedly the respondent Coal India

Ltd. is also ‘State’ within the meaning of Article. 12

of the Constitution of India, and Section 13 of the

General Clauses Act aims at non-discrimination only

on the basis of gender. In other words, it prohibits

gender discrimination. Section 13 of the General

Clauses Act reads as follows:—

“13. Gender and number.—In all Central Acts and

Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in

the subject or context,—

(1) words importing the masculine gender shall be

taken to include females; and

(2) words in the singular shall include the plural, and

vice versa.”

26. A plain reading of this Section clearly shows that

all the words importing the masculine gender shall

be taken to include females and in that view of the

matter also, if brother is included in the list of

dependents under Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA, there is

no reason as to why the word ‘brother’ shall not

include sister also.

9

27. We are of the considered view that the case of

the appellants is fully covered by the decisions

relied upon by learned counsels for the appellants

herein before. The non-inclusion of the parents and

sister of the deceased workman dying in harness, in

the list of dependants to be appointed on

compassionate ground, cannot be said to be based

on any rational basis, rather this is wholly unfair and

absolutely unjust. It is also not based on any

intelligible differentia, and frustrates the very object

the scheme for compassionate appointment. These

immediate blood relations cannot be denied the

benefit of compassionate appointment, if they are

otherwise entitled for the same, simply because of

the fact that they may be entitled to the

compensation under the workman compensation

benefits admissible under the Workmen's

Compensation Act, as they fall within the definition

of ‘dependent’, given in Section 2(1)(d) of the said

Act.

28. Even otherwise, in view of the law laid down by

the Full Bench of Calcutta High Court, in Purnima

Das's case (supra), while giving interpretation to the

term dependent in terms of the NCWA itself, that for

the purpose of a scheme for compassionate

appointment every such member of the family of the

employee who is dependent on the earnings of such

employee for his/her survival must be considered to

belong to ‘a class’, and their exclusion cannot be

only on the ground of gender or marital status, we

are of the considered view that this decision has a

binding effect on the respondents, as this decision

was rendered in case of compassionate

appointment in coal company itself, which was again

10

governed by the NCWA itself. This decision was

again followed by a co-ordinate Bench of this High

Court also, in case of the present respondents

themselves, i.e., Central Coalfields Ltd., in Hemanti

Devi's case (supra).

29. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent

Central Coalfields Ltd., is directed not only to

consider the claims of the appellants for being

appointed on compassionate ground in accordance

with law, but also to take steps for inclusion of the

parents and sister of the workman dying in harness,

in the definition of dependents under Clause 9.3.3 of

the NCWA. We would like to make it clear that

consideration of the appellants for appointment on

the compassionate ground, shall be subject to

fulfillment of the other conditions necessary for such

appointment, by the appellants. In view of the

foregoing discussions, we hereby set-aside the

impugned Judgments passed by the Writ Courts,

being the Judgment dated 14.7.2017, passed in

WP(S) No. 3406 of 2016*, as also the Judgment

dated 17.7.2017, passed in WP(S) No. 6099 of

2012, out of which, both these appeals arise.

9.In Shimla (supra), while dealing with the issue of entitlement to

compassionate appointment for the sister of a deceased

employee, the following was held at paragraphs 7, 8, 9 :

7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the

parties at length and with their assistance, we have

also perused the documents placed on record. In

the light of the fact that the petitioners have sought a

declaration that NCWA-EX and especially Clause

9.3.3 thereof insofar as it dis-entitles female

dependents from seeking employment on

11

compassionate basis is violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India, it is the stand of the WCL that

such declaration cannot be granted in the present

proceedings in view of the provisions of section

18(3) of the Act of 1947 as all terms of the

agreement are binding on both parties. Unless

NCWA-EX is suitably amended, the claim of the

petitioners cannot be considered. Before going into

that aspect, it would be necessary to refer to the

judgment initially of the learned Single Judge of the

Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shakila Begum

(Siddiqui) (supra). The facts therein indicate that the

claim of the daughter of an employee of the

Northern Coalfields Limited (NCL) for

compassionate appointment came to be denied on

the ground that the same was not permissible under

Clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA-EX. While considering

challenge to that order, the learned Single Judge

referred to the judgment of the Full Bench of the

said Court in Meenakshi Dubey v. M.P. Poorva

Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., (2020) 1 MP LJ (FB)

657 = Writ Appeal No. 756/2019 decided on 2-3-

2020 wherein the Full Bench has held that Clause

9.3.3, of the NCWA-LX while referring to

dependents would include married daughter/sister.

Following the judgment of the Full Bench, the

learned Single Judge held that sister of an

employee as dependent could not be deprived of

consideration of the claim for compassionate

appointment. The Writ Petition preferred by her was

allowed. This judgment of the learned Single Judge

came to be challenged in Writ Appeal No. 616/2022,

Northern Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman-

cum-Managing Director Singrauli v. Shakila Begum

12

(Siddiqui) wd/o Late Abdul Latif Siddiquidecided on

14-6-2022 wherein the Division Bench considered

the ground raised by the NCL that Clause 9.3.3

could not be declared to be illegal without

impleading the Joint Bipartite Committee For The

Coal Industry (JBCCI) in the proceedings. It was

held that the NCL being a party to the agreement

was only an implementing authority and thus was

not aggrieved by the order passed by the learned

Single Judge declaring Clause 9.3.3 to be illegal. On

that count and as the learned Single Judge had

relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of the

said Court in Meenakshi Dubey (supra), the Writ

Appeal came to be dismissed.

8. From the aforesaid, it becomes clear that insofar

as the NCL which is a signatory to the NCWA-LX is

concerned, it is covered by the aforesaid decisions

and it cannot implement Clause 9.3.3 by excluding

claim of a married sister as dependent of the

deceased employee for seeking compassionate

appointment. The WCL is also a signatory to the

NCWA-EX being a subsidiary of the Coal India

Limited. If the aforesaid declaration as granted by

the Madhya Pradesh High Court and affirmed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court binds the concerned

signatory to the said agreement which is a

subsidiary of the Coal India Limited, there is no

reason to hold that the aforesaid adjudication would

not be applicable to the WCL which is another

subsidiary of the Coal India Limited. Holding so

would result in implementing Clause 9.3.3 of the

NCWA-LX in a different manner insofar as the WCL

is concerned which would not be consistent with the

manner in which the NCL is now bound to interpret it

13

in the light of the aforesaid decisions. We therefore

find that for the aforesaid reasons, it would not be

permissible for the WCL to re-iterate the very same

contentions that were raised on behalf of the NCL

only for the reason that such contentions were

raised before a different High Court. The fact that

the view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has

been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is in our

view a sufficient reason not to entertain the very

same arguments at the behest of another subsidiary

of the Coal India Limited afresh. In Sahu Madho

Das v. Mukand Ram, AIR 1955 SC 481 the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that where a document has

been interpreted in an earlier decision it may not

bind a person who was not a party to the said

proceedings but the construction of the document

would operate as a judicial precedent.

9. We may note that the Full Bench of the Madhya

Pradesh High Court in Meenakshi Dubey (supra)

has considered the aforesaid issue at length and

has referred to various enactments that were relied

upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners

herein. Since we agree that the view taken by the

Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in

Meenakshi Dubey (supra) depriving a married

daughter from the right of consideration for

compassionate appointment cannot sustain judicial

scrutiny, it is not necessary to refer to the said

provisions again. Moreover, reference has been

made to various decisions of other High Courts on

the said point in the said decision including the

judgment of this Court in Sou. Swara Sachin

Kulkarni (Kumari Deepa Ashok Kulkarni) v.

Superintending Engineer, Pune Irrigation Project

14

Circle, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1549 : 2013 Mh. L.J.

Online 171. Therein, the Division Bench held that

refusal to consider the claim of a married daughter

for compassionate appointment would amount to

discrimination on the basis of gender thus violating

Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

We also note that the Jharkhand High Court in

Madhubala Sinha (supra) has considered this very

question and by its judgment dated 16-9-2019

directed consideration of the claim of a sister under

Clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA-LX. It is noted that this

judgment of the Jharkhand High Court was

challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29678/2018, Central

Coalfields Ltd. v. Gendia Debi. The Special Leave

Petition came to be dismissed on 12-11-2021.

However, the question of law was left open for being

examined in an appropriate case. It is therefore held

that Clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA-IX insofar as it

excludes a married daughter/sister from being

considered for appointment on compassionate basis

is unreasonable and suffers from gender

discrimination thus being violative of Articles 14 and

15 of the Constitution of India.

10.Considering the aforesaid aspects and the peculiar facts and

circumstances of this case and also in light of the aforesaid

judgments, particularly considering that there is no other survivor

to support the widowed mother and that petitioner No.2 is herself

a widow residing in her maternal home, this Court is of the opinion

the petitioner No.2 is entitled to be considered for dependent

employment. Furthermore, it is significant that the deceased was

15

employed in lieu of land acquisition, which grants the family a

vested interest in the employment benefits.

11.Consequently, the impugned letter (Annexure P/1) is quashed

The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of

petitioner No.2 afresh for grant of compassionate appointment.

Upon due verification, petitioner No.2 shall be granted

appointment in place of her deceased brother - Rajaram. This

exercise shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

12.With the aforesaid directions/observations, the Petition is

allowed. Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge

Shyna Ajay

16

The date when the

judgment is reserved

The date when the

judgment is

pronounced

The date when the judgment is

uploaded on the website

Operative Full

22.01.2026 28.02.2026 ------ 28.02.2026