Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sahodri Gond vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited on 9 September, 2022
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 591 of 2021
1. Smt. Sahodri Gond W/o Late Pran Singh Aged About 57 Years R/o Hiragir
Dafai Haldibadi, Chirmiri, Tehsil- Khadgawa, District- Koriya (Chhattisgarh),
District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
2. Durga Singh D/o Late Pran Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o Hiragir Dafai
Haldibadi, Chirmiri, Tehsil- Khadgawa, District- Koriya (Chhattisgarh), District :
Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,
South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Sarkanda,
District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2. Sub Area Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Charcha Mine R.O., Post-
Charcha Colliery, District- Koriya (Chhattisgarh), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur),
Chhattisgarh
3. Area Personnel Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Baikunthpur Area,
District- Koriya (Chhattisgarh), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
4. Deputy Manager (Personnel) Charcha Mine, R.O. Post- Charcha Colliery,
District- Koriya (Chhattisgarh), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For petitioners : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas.
Order on Board (09-09-2022)
1. The application of the petitioner No.1 for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 14- 7-2020 on the ground that as per Social Security Scheme of National Coal Wage Agreement the dependent sister is not entitled to get dependent employment and accordingly it has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the reason assigned by the SECL has also been considered and examined by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.3899 of 2016 (Nutan 2 Khushbu Singh vs. SECL and others) decided on 13-7-2017 wherein Co-ordinate Bench of this court has held in para 5 which reads as under.
"5. In Writ Appeal (WA No. 562 dof 2016), Coal India Ltd., and others vs. Miss Himshikha Mallick) filed against the decision of Miss Himshikha Mallack (supra), Writ Appellate Court also observed thus:
12. "The Apex Court has clearly held that there cannot be any discrimination solely on the ground of gender. As far as the present case is concerned, no ground other than the ground of gender has been pointed out in the stand of Coal India to justify its stand that only legally adopted male children are entitled to compassionate appointment. No reason has been given why legally adopted female children are not given the same benefit. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that this part/ clause of the agreement is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India because discrimination has been made only on the basis of gender while denying the women the right to employment.
13. In a country where the female is worshipped as "Shakti" it is indeed a sad state of affairs that when it comes to providing jobs, we are not willing to provide employment to women. In temples we prostrate before the female form while praying for benefits for ourselves. If we are ready to bow down before the female idols to get benefit for ourselves, why should women not have some rights as men in real life. When we actually deal with women, what to talk of worship;png them like "Devis" we are not even willing to give them the same benefits, which we are giving to other persons in society".
3. Against that, writ appeal was filed by the SECL before this court being WA No. 393 of 2017 and the said appeal has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 9-11-2017 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has observed in para 2 which reads as under:
3"2. The wage agreement appears to provide dependency employment to dependent brother and not to the dependent sister. We do not see that there is any specific exclusion of the dependent sister though the dependency employment is extended to the dependent brother. WE do not see any rationale to sustain any classification purely on ground of gender as between the sister and brother of deceased workers. Therefore, if dependency employment is confined tgo the brother of the deceased employee to the exclusion of the sister, it will amount to hostile discrimination only on the ground of sex. This formidable principle emanating out of Part III of the Constitution lends complete support to the reasons stated by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 13-7-2017. We do not find any illegality or factual infirmity in the impugned decision. This intra-court appeal therefore fails".
4. Thereafter, SLP was preferred by the SECL before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was registered as Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 16369 of 2018 and the said SLP has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 9-11-2017. When the matter has already been examined by the Hon'ble Single Bench, Ho'ble Division Bench and affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, nothing is required to be adjudicated by this court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed their return in which they have denied, the allegations and submitted that as per service record, the name of petitioner No.2 Durga Singh has not been mentioned.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submitted that in the attestation form (Annexure P/4) family of the petitioners has been categorically described in column No.4 which reads as under:
Father : Pran Singh
Mother : Smt. Sahodri Bai
Brother : Bhanupratap Singh
4
Sister ; Ku. Kavita.
7. The aforesaid attention was made on 9-3-2019 much prior to death of deceased employee. Therefore, the contention raised by the SECL that the petitioner No.2 is not the sister of the deceased, cannot be considered at this juncture, even otherwise, in the rejection order also there is no mention about the stand taken by them.
8. It is well settled position of law that when any authority passes any order based on certain grounds then they cannot supplement fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise before the court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 8 has held which reads as under:"
"The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought ,out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji (1) "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in Ms mind, or what he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."5
9. Learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that to substantiate his stand he needs one more time to clarify.
10. It is a case of compassionate appointment and the ground assigned by the SECL in their rejection order has already been authentically concluded by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, Division Bench of this court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the other ground on which claim can be refuted, cannot be examined by this court at this juncture as it was not subject matter of the order. Therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents for giving further opportunity to substantiate more view, cannot be considered.
11. The respondent/ SECL is directed to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench & Division Bench of this Court affirmed by the Supreme Court as mentioned in aforesaid paragraphs.
12. With the aforesaid observation the instant writ petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju