Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 30 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Surendra Kumar, son of the late Smt. Bhagwaniya; Respondents – South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) and its officials (Chairman‑Cum‑Managing Director, General Manager (Personnel), Area General Manager, Sub‑Area Manager, Senior Manager (Personnel)).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ Petition (WPS No. 8779 of 2023) seeking dependent employment under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) after the death of the petitioner’s mother, who was employed as ‘General Mazdoor’ at Rajnagar OCM.
  • Key Dates & Facts:
  • Mother died on 07‑05‑2011.
  • Petitioner applied for dependent employment on 12‑09‑2011.
  • SECL rejected the application on 20‑04‑2012 without giving a reason.
  • Subsequent representations were made, notably on 19‑08‑2016, but no action was taken.
  • Petition filed on 30‑10‑2023 (more than 12 years after the death and over 10 years after the rejection).
  • Reliefs Sought: (i) Call for complete record, (ii) Direct SECL to consider and grant dependent employment per NCWA, (iii) Issue appointment order, (iv) Pay compensation for denial of right, (v) Any other relief including costs.
  • Earlier Judicial History:
  • Single Judge order dated 28‑02‑2026 allowed the petition, directing SECL to consider the application.
  • SECL appealed (Writ Appeal No. 402 of 2026); Division Bench set aside the order on 08‑05‑2026, remitting the matter for fresh hearing, specifically to consider the issue of delay and laches.
  • Arguments:
  • Petitioner: Cited NCWA as a binding bipartite settlement, not a discretionary scheme; relied on Supreme Court judgments (Mohan Mahto, Smt. Subhadra, Avinash Saloman, etc.) asserting that a dependent’s right cannot be denied merely because another family member is employed.
  • Respondents (SECL): Asserted that the father’s existing employment (Clerk Grade‑II) negated the need for a dependent appointment; relied on the 80th Meeting of Directors (Personnel) of Coal India Ltd dated 16‑04‑2004 stating no further employment/compensation when a spouse is already employed; argued the petition was barred by delay and laches.
  • Both sides cited numerous Supreme Court and High Court precedents on compassionate appointments, delay, laches, and the binding nature of NCWA.
  • Legal Reasoning:
  • The Court distinguished internal minutes of 2004 as unable to override the statutory, binding settlement under NCWA.
  • It affirmed that the NCWA does not contain an absolute bar for a dependent when another family member is employed; thus the petitioner is entitled to consideration for dependent employment.
  • However, the Court examined the doctrine of delay and laches, noting that the petition was filed more than 12 years after the mother’s death and over a decade after the initial rejection, with only intermittent representations that do not extend the limitation period.
  • Citing Supreme Court authority, the Court held that mere delay, without sufficient cause, cannot be condoned when it undermines the interests of justice and creates uncertainty.

Final Outcome

  • The petition is dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches, despite the finding that the petitioner is entitled to dependent employment under NCWA.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Any pending interlocutory applications are disposed of.

Topics: Dependent Employment; Delay and Laches