South Eastern Coalfields Limited vs Uma

The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by this court in WPS No.5919 of 2021.

The matter pertains to a claim for compassionate appointment by a married daughter in the SECL establishment. The claim was initially rejected on

23.08.2021 on the ground that the non applicant-petitioner was a married daughter and therefore she does not fall within the ambit of the term

'dependent' under the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement (in short, NCWA).

The issue whether a married daughter would fall within the ambit of a dependent or not was already settled by a couple of decisions decided by the

Single Bench, upheld by the Division Bench and also confirmed by the Supreme Court. Relying upon those judgments, the case of non applicant also

was allowed by this court on 28.10.2021. In the course of considering the claim of the petitioner, the applicants SECL have now filed the present

review petition on the ground that there are certain doubts so far as the petitioner being the legal heir of the deceased employee in the light of certain

entries that have been found in the service records and on this ground the SECL have filed this review petition seeking for review of the order.

All said and done, what needs to be considered is that the earlier rejection of the non applicant's application for dependent employment by the

management of SECL dated 23.08.2021 was only on the ground that she was a married daughter. This court while allowing the writ petition had

directed the respondents SECL that the reason that she is a married daughter would no longer be a ground available for the SECL to reject her claim

for compassionate appointment particularly in the light of the judgment of this court in the case of Smt. Asha Pandey Vs. Coal India Limited &

Others, followed by a series of decisions of similar nature.

The allowing of the writ petition was only to the extent of quashing the order and stand of the applicant SECL, that married daughters would not be

entitled for dependent employment. This court had further directed the management of SECL to consider the claim of the petitioner in terms of the

provisions of NCWA and to take a fresh decision except the fact that she was a married daughter would no longer be a ground available for the

SECL to reject the claim for dependent employment. This, in other words, means that SECL was required to consider the case of the non applicant on

its own merits in accordance with the rules, regulations and the provisions of NCWA governing the field including verification of the status of the non

applicant so far as her claim to be the legal heir of the deceased employee.

This court never had made an observation that the respondents are not to scrutinize the claim of the non applicant on other grounds and seek

credentials required for grant of dependent employment. The order passed by this court in paragraph 7 as well as in paragraph 10 is very clear in this

regard.

Given the said facts, this court does not find any strong case made by the applicants management of SECL calling for review of the order passed

by this court on 28.10.2021. It is expected that the management of SECL shall take an appropriate decision at the earliest after due verification,

enquiry and scrutiny of the entitlement part in terms of the rules governing the field, except that of the non applicant being a married daughter. The

order passed by the management of SECL also is expected to be a reasoned and speaking order.

The review petition accordingly fails and is rejected.