Authority: Calcutta High Court (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Appellate Side)

Order Date: 21 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: petitioner Lakshmi Prasad Yadav vs. Eastern Coal Field Limited (ECL) and others (WPA/16326/2009).
  • Petitioner claimed to be the son‑in‑law of the late Nehal Gope, who served at ECL’s Kendra Colliery from 1 Jan 1958 to 21 Nov 1990, took voluntary retirement due to medical unfitness, and whose service was terminated effective 19 Nov 1991. Nehal died in 2006.
  • In 2007, petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment in place of Nehal. The employer rejected the application on three grounds: belated filing, inability to establish petitioner’s relationship with Nehal, and failure to meet eligibility benchmarks.
  • Petitioner’s submissions: he had submitted all required documents (no‑objection certificate, relationship certificate, affidavit, indemnity bond, declaration) and asserted that documents from the Superintendent of Police, a local MLA, and others proved his son‑in‑law status.
  • Respondent’s submissions: alleged that petitioner fabricated documents, that the relationship was false, and that petitioner was actually the son‑in‑law of Satyadeo Yadav (an AITUC union office‑bearer). They highlighted discrepancies between Nehal’s original service record (listing wife, two daughters, and a son Umesh) and an additional sheet that listed petitioner as son‑in‑law but omitted the son’s name.
  • Respondent cited Clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement‑V (NCWA‑V), which permits employment of a dependent of a permanently disabled worker. Direct dependents are wife/husband, unmarried daughter, son, legally adopted son; secondary dependents (including son‑in‑law) may be considered only if direct dependents are unavailable, the applicant resides with the employee, is almost wholly dependent on the employee’s earnings, and is not older than 35 years (male spouse has no age limit, but other dependents do).
  • Petitioner was about 43 years old in 2007 and approximately 60 years at the time of judgment, exceeding the 35‑year age ceiling for “other dependents”.
  • Petitioner failed to provide a marriage certificate to prove marriage to Pabia Devi (Nehal’s daughter), nor any no‑objection certificate from Nehal’s son Umesh, nor evidence of residing with Nehal or financial dependence.
  • The court noted the 16‑year gap between Nehal’s disability/termination (1991) and petitioner’s application (2007), and the fact that petitioner applied only after Nehal’s death, raising suspicion of opportunism.
  • The judgment referenced Supreme Court decision in Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley (2024 SC Online 551), emphasizing that writ petitions must be filed within a reasonable time; a stale cause of action cannot be revived.
  • The additional sheet to the service record, which named petitioner as son‑in‑law, was deemed unreliable, especially as its witness was Satyadeo Yadav, who was under investigation for irregularities in employment processing.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held that the petitioner’s claim of being Nehal Gope’s son‑in‑law is doubtful and that he failed to satisfy all mandatory criteria under NCWA‑V (age limit, residence, dependence, and lack of direct dependent objections).
  • Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
  • No order as to costs was made.
  • The court directed that an urgent photostat certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Compassionate Appointment, Employment Law