SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 19188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SMT. GAYATRI MAHATO – Appellant
Versus
SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED – Respondent
WPS/5577/2022



2025:CGHC:56652 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5577 of 2022

1 - Smt. Gayatri Mahato Wd/o Shri Gaurishankar Mahato Aged About 49 Years R/o Qr. No.

65, Baroud Awashiya Parisar, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The Chief Managing Director Seepat Raod, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

2 - Director (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

3 - General Manager (Personnel/administrative) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

4 - Deputy Regional Manager Baroud Sub Area, District Raigarh (C.G.)

5 - Area Manager (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Baroud Sbu Area, Raigarh Area, Barghat, P.O. Baroud, Tahsil Ghargoda, District Raigarh (C.G.)

6 - Sub Area Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Baroud Sub Area, Raigarh Area, Barghat, P.O. Baroud, Tahsil Ghargoda, District Raigarh (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput)

Order on Board

20/11/2025

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s):-

10.1 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash/ set aside the Order/ Letter dated 08/07/2022 & Order dated 01/06/2017 passed by General Manager, (Personnel/ Administrative), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. arising out of order dated 02/05/2016 issued by the Sub Area Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Baroud Sub Area, Raigarh Area, Barghat, P.O. Baroud, Tahsil Ghargoda, District Raigarh, C.G. being illegal and contrary to law.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to grant family pension to the family members of Late Shri Gaurishankar Mahto' as he is missing since 06/11/2013 and declaration was made by the court as to the civil death of Gaurishankar Mahto & granted a decree on 29/03/2022 in this regard.

10.3 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release terminal dues along with interest ie; Gratuity, Provident fund, Leave Encasement, if any and such other service benefits including the eligibility to get Family Pension including arrears.

10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records from the office of the respondents in respect of petitioner's claim and further direct the Respondents to provide the cost of the petition and other expenses suffered by the petitioner.

10.5 That, any other writ, order, directions or relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner namely Gaurishankar Mahato was working with respondents on the post of Junior Data Entry Operator and was posted at Barod, O.C.M. SECL Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. He further submits that on 06.11.2013 at about 10:30 am, the husband of the petitioner left the house for Raigarh by bus but did not return home. Thereafter, he was found missing despite a search being made. The petitioner subsequently filed a missing report with the concerned Police Station on 12.11.2013. As the petitioner’s husband was not traced, the petitioner made several complaints to the Police and the fact of missing of her husband was also duly intimated to the respondents authority. Later on, the petitioner’s husband was declared as civil dead vide judgment dated 29.03.2022 by the Additional Civil Judge, Khargoda of First Civil Judge Class-2, District Raigarh (CG) in Civil Suit No.18A/ 2021. He submits that as the petitioner was absent from his duties, the respondent initiated a departmental enquiry against the husband of the petitioner. He further submits that after the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the husband of the petitioner was removed from his services vide o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top