Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the B.C.C.L.

2. The petitioner in the writ application has challenged the order dated 17.7.2015 by which she has been asked to obtain succession certificate from the competent court to facilitate granting her compassionate appointment.

3. Leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned letter is absolutely illegal and there is no justification in issuing the said order on the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that succession certificate cannot be sought for granting compassionate appointment. He further submits that she is the only unmarried daughter of the deceased and this fact has not been disputed in the impugned notice.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the B.C.C.L submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner is the daughter or the only unmarried daughter as such, this impugned order has been issued.

5. I have gone through the impugned order. The impugned order reads as under:

“With reference to letter no. 838 dated 26/27.6.2015 issued by Chief Manager (P) P.B. Area as per instruction of the competent authority.

“The daughter of deceased employee may be asked to submit succession certificate from the competent court.” The instructions given by the competent authority may humbly be complied with.”

6. From the impugned order, it is apparent that for considering the case of the petitioner on compassionate appointment, succession certificate has been sought for. The BCCL authorities intends to rely on the certificate to ascertain the relationship between the claimant and the deceased or the genuinity of the claimant.

7. It is undisputed that workmen, namely, Baju Ram was an employee of BCCL who died in harness on 6.2.2013. This petitioner claims to be the sole unmarried daughter, who has filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment. National Coal Wage Agreement provides for grant of compassionate appointment to the unmarried daughter. Annexure 8 is a letter written to the Project Officer/Personnel Executive of Simlabahal Colliery by the Chief Manager (Personnel), P.B. Area BCCL wherein a copy of the verification report of the BDO and certificate of police verification was asked for. From the record it is apparent that BCCL has sought for a report from the police and BDO in respect of this petitioner as to whether she is a daughter of the deceased employee or not and if so, whether she is the sole unmarried daughter. The BDO report has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure 6 of the writ application wherein it has been certified that certificate bearing no.305 dated 179.2013 has been issued by the office of the BDO. This certificate no.305 dated 17.9.2013 is annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ application which suggests that after verification it was found that Kiran Kumari is the only daughter of the deceased and is the sole heir and on the date of issuance of the certificate is unmarried.

8. A succession certified is issued under Chapter X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Banarsi Dass vs. Teeku Dutta [(2005) 4 SCC 449] has held that the main object of a succession certificate is to facilitate collection of debts on succession and afford protection to the parties paying debts to the representatives of deceased persons.

10. Further it has been held the grant of a certificate does not establish a title of the grantee as the heir of the deceased, but only furnishes him with authority to collect his debts and allows the debtors to make payments to him without incurring any risk.

11. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.K. Prahalada vs. State of Karnataka [(2008) 15 SCC 577] inter alia has held that by obtaining a succession certificate alone, a person does not become the owner of the property.

12. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Chhattisgarh and others vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar [(2009