Point of Law: Exclusion of married daughter is unreasonable and in violation of provisions prescribed under Articles 14 and 15 of Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

[Sanjay Agrawal, J.]

1. The Respondents – South Eastern Coal Fields Limited and others (hereinafter referred to as the S.E.C.L.) preferred this appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to the Division Bench) Act, 2006, questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.6578 of 2021, whereby the claim of the Writ Petitioners has been allowed entitling Petitioner No.2 – Smt. Narmada Parida to be appointed as dependent employment on account of sad demise of her father, the employee of the Appellants – S.E.C.L. The parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their descriptions mentioned before the Court of learned Single Judge.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Kampo, predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners, who was the employee of S.E.C.L., has died in harness on 14.04.2021. On account of his sad demise, Petitioner No.1, Smt. Shobha Parida, being his widow, had applied for dependent employment for her son, namely, Krishna Chandra Parida, as per the terms provided in clause 9.3.3 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (for short, the N.C.W.A.), on 12.05.2021. The said application was, however, rejected on 16.05.2021 holding her son to be over-aged. Immediately thereafter, i.e., on 19.05.2021, she approached the S.E.C.L. authorities for employment of her married daughter – Smt. Narmada Parida, Petitioner No.2 herein, as dependent employment. Further contention of the petitioners is that when her claim was not considered, they have been compelled to file the petition before this Court seeking issuance of direction against the authorities of S.E.C.L. for consideration of their application so made in this aspect on 19.05.2021.

3. In reply to the aforesaid claim, it was stated by the Respondents – S.E.C.L. that the alleged application of the Petitioners are under consideration and appropriate decision will be taken after examining the dependency part of Petitioner No.2 as to whether she was wholly dependent upon the earning of her deceased father or not as required under the provisions prescribed under said N.C.W.A. It is contended further that in order to consider her dependency, a request was made to Petitioner No.1 vide its letter dated 10.06.2021 requesting her for submission of the certificate of the Sub-Divisional Officer or Tahsildar, Baikunthpur, District Koriya in this regard so as to decide her claim as made.

4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials placed on record, based upon the principles laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Asha Pandey vs. Coal India Limited passed in W.P.(S) No.4994/2015 on 15.03.2016, which was affirmed further by the Division Bench of this Court on 03.09.2019 in Writ Appeal No.246/2016 as well as by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) Diary No. 238/2020 decided on 31.01.2020, arrived at a conclusion that Petitioner No.2, being a married daughter, is also entitled for dependent employment in terms of clause 9.3.3 of N.C.W.A. and, it was held further that being a married daughter, she would come within the purview of direct dependent as specified in the said clause and no enquiry is, therefore, needed for in order to consider her dependency part as alleged by the Appellants/S.E.C.L. In consequence, the authorities of S.E.C.L. are directed to consider and decide the case of Petitioner No.2 for her appointment as a dependent employment in terms of clause 9.3.3 of N.C.W.A. within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order while imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the Writ Petitioners.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants – S.E.C.L., while referring to clause 9.3.3 of N.C.W.A., submits that the finding of the learned Single Judge holding that Petitioner No.2 – Smt. Narmada Parida, being a married daughter of deceased employee, would fall within the first category, i.e., “direct dependent”, as