Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 6171
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Arvind Kumar Verma, J
Minketan Chandra – Appellant
Versus
South Eastern Coalfields Limited – Respondent
WA No. 964 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Yogesh Kumar Chandra
For the Respondents: Vaibhav Shukla
Compassionate appointment is governed by the policy in force on the date of the employee's death. Subsequent amendments cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly provided, and the existence of an earning dependent generally disentitles claimants under restrictive executive policies.
Headnote:The appellants challenged a Single Judge's order dismissing their claim for compassionate appointment following the death of an employee of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL). The court analyzed the Circular/Memorandum dated 13.03.1981 and a subsequent amendment dated 25.06.2024. It was found that the deceased employee was categorized as an executive employee, and under Clause (vii) of the 1981 circular, compassionate appointment is barred if another dependent is already in employment. The court determined that the mother of the appellant was employed as a teacher, thus disqualifying the claim. The primary issue was whether a subsequent circular (25.06.2024) allowing appointment of additional dependents could be applied retrospectively and whether the deceased was governed by the executive policy or the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA). The court reasoned that "The policy in force on the date of death of the employee alone governs the claim, and subsequent amendments or circulars cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly so provided," and since the claimant's family had an earning member, the policy embargo applied. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and facts regarding the claim for compassionate appointment based on the death of an secl employee. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellant's argument for retrospective application of 2024 circular and applicability of ncwa over executive policy. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondent's contention that policies are not retrospective and the presence of an earning dependent bars appointment. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. principle that only the policy active at the time of death applies and earning dependents disqualify candidates under the 1981 circular. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. validation of single judge's order and final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 13 , 14) |
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
07.01.2026
1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents/SECL.
2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellants, who were writ petitioners in the writ petition, have challenged the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.4746/2020 (Minketan Chandra Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/appellants herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the father of appellant No.1 and husband of the appellant No.2, namely late Lakhan Lal Chandra, while working as a Subordinate Engineer in the establishment of the SECL, died due to a sudden illness on 26.12.2018. He was survived by appellant No.2 (wife), appellant No.1 (son) and another son namely Bhushan Chandra. The name of dependent appellant No.1 was proposed for employment on the ground that his mother i.e. appellant No.2 is working as a temporary employee i.e. Teacher in Vidyut Gruh Higher Secondary School No.1, Korba in the Pay Scale of Rs.9300- 38800 + 4200/- Grade Pay, drawing a salary of Rs.42,304/- and also receiving pension emoluments to the tune of Rs.12,228/-. The claim of the appellants was denied vide communication dated 20.8.2020 on the ground that the deceased employee’s wife (one of the dependents) is already in service, therefore, the employment of an additional dependent will not be considered. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant have preferred Writ Petition bearing WPS No. 4746 of 2020, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 09.10.2025. Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, failed to properly appreciate the amended Circular/Memorandum dated 25.06.2024 issued by the Respondents. Particular emphasis was placed on Clause 1.6(vii) thereof, which expressly provides for consideration of compassionate appointment to an additional dependent even in cases where another dependent is already in service. It was submitted that the said circular is an amendment and in addition to the earlier circulars, and therefore the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the Respondent authorities to consider the claim of the Appellants in the light of the amended policy dated 25.06.2024. It was further argued that the Respondents erroneously relied upon the circular dated 13.03.1981, particularly Clause (vii) thereof, to reject the claim of compassionate appointment on the ground that one dependent of the deceased employee was already in service. Learned counsel submitted that Petitioner No.2, the mother of Petitioner No.1, is only a temporary teacher in Vidyut Grih Higher Secondary School No.1, Korba, and such employment is neither permanent nor under SECL. Hence, the circular dated 13.03.1981 has been wrongly applied and misinterpreted to deprive Petitioner No.1 of compassionate appointment.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the writ petition clearly pleaded, pa
