A subsequent change in law cannot reopen a compassionate appointment claim that attained finality.

The petitioner’s father, Dwarika Prasad Sahu, a General Mazdoor, Category-I with SECL, died in harness on 13 May 1998.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 24 January 2012.

In WPS No. 468 of 2013, the High Court directed the respondents to consider her claim, but it was rejected on 12 July 2013 on the ground that a married daughter was not eligible for dependent employment.

The petitioner challenged the rejection in WPS No. 3429 of 2013, which was dismissed on 11 December 2013, though liberty was granted to pursue the matter administratively.

Her husband’s subsequent claim for dependent employment was also rejected on the ground that he was not dependent on his father-in-law; the challenge to that rejection in WPS No. 6405 of 2017 was dismissed on 7 December 2017.

Relying on the subsequent decision in Asha Pandey v. SECL, WPS No. 4994 of 2015, decided on 15 March 2016, and the amended provisions of the National Coal Wage Agreement, the petitioner submitted a fresh application on 23 September 2020.

After filing WPS No. 4322 of 2021, she was granted liberty to pursue her claim before the authorities in view of the changed legal position.

The respondents ultimately rejected her claim by order dated 24 June 2022, which was challenged in the present petition.

The Court applied the principle that a subsequent change in law cannot reopen a matter that has already attained finality between the parties.

In Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Association, it was held that rights concerning seniority and promotion, once finally determined, cannot be adversely affected by a later contrary judicial view.

Pradeep Kumar Maskara v. State of West Bengal established that reversal or modification of a legal proposition in a subsequent case is not, by itself, a ground for reviewing or ignoring an earlier final judgment.

Under Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, final judgments bind the parties and the doctrine of res judicata applies to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Although Asha Pandey v. SECL recognized the entitlement of a married daughter to seek dependent employment under the applicable NCWA provisions, that principle could not retrospectively reopen the petitioner’s concluded litigation.

The petitioner’s reliance on Manoj Parihar v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, concerning the retrospective operation of declared law, was found inapplicable to a case where the factual and legal dispute had already attained finality.

The Court found that the petitioner’s claim had been conclusively adjudicated in earlier proceedings, particularly WPS Nos. 3429 of 2013 and 6405 of 2017, and that those orders had not been challenged and had therefore attained finality.

Although Asha Pandey was decided in 2016 and recognized the eligibility of married daughters, it constituted a subsequent legal development relative to the petitioner’s earlier concluded proceedings.

The Court held that the later decision and the changed NCWA position could not be used to revive a claim already rejected by final judicial orders.

The liberty granted in WPS No. 4322 of 2021 to approach the authorities administratively did not nullify the binding effect of the earlier judgments or create a fresh enforceable right to compassionate appointment.

No ground for interference with the respondents’ order dated 24 June 2022 was established.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.